Supreme Court penalizes medical college for fraud and misrepresentation: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University vs. Union of India (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a medical college fabricate records and present false information to secure permission for admitting students? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and its medical college. The court found the college guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, imposing significant penalties for their actions. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and honesty in the education sector, especially in medical institutions. The bench consisted of Justices S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, and R. Subhash Reddy. Justice L. Nageswara Rao authored the judgment.

Case Background

The R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital and Research Centre (the College) was initially granted permission to establish a medical college with an intake of 150 MBBS students annually for the academic year 2014-15. Following an inspection in February 2015, the Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended against renewing permission for the 2015-16 batch due to identified deficiencies. Despite multiple reviews and reassessments, the Central Government upheld the decision to deny renewal. Subsequent court orders led to further inspections and conditional permissions. In September 2016, the Oversight Committee allowed admissions for the 2016-17 academic year, conditional upon rectifying deficiencies and providing a bank guarantee.

A joint verification inspection in January 2017 revealed significant deficiencies, leading the MCI to recommend debarring the College from admitting students for 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Central Government accepted this recommendation. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh initially permitted provisional admissions for 2017-18, but the Supreme Court later ordered a re-inspection. The subsequent inspection in September 2017 was allegedly disrupted by the College. A further inspection revealed severe deficiencies, including low bed occupancy, lack of major surgeries and deliveries, inflated clinical data, and faculty shortages. The MCI directed the College to discharge all students admitted for 2017-18.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The College initially challenged the Central Government’s order denying permission for the 2015-16 batch in the High Court of Delhi, which directed a fresh examination of the matter. The Central Government, however, reiterated its decision. Subsequently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ordered another inspection. The MCI challenged this order in the Supreme Court, which directed a fresh inspection. The Oversight Committee then granted conditional permission for the 2016-17 batch.

After the Central Government debarred the College from admitting students for 2017-18 and 2018-19, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed provisional admissions. This order was challenged by the MCI in the Supreme Court, which directed a re-inspection. Following the re-inspection and subsequent findings of deficiencies, the Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of admissions and constituted a committee to investigate the matter.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (“the MCI Regulations”). Specifically, Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of the MCI Regulations was invoked due to deficiencies in bed occupancy and residents. This regulation states that:

“Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch): [If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or bed occupancy is < 65%, compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.]”

Further, Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(d) were also mentioned in the judgment.

Regulation 8 (3)(1) states that:

“The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal [as per latest time schedule] prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.”

Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) states that:

“Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch): [If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 50% (45% in North East, Hilly Terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.]”

Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) states that:

“Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with faked / forged documents: If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked / forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission / recognition for award of M.B.B.S. degree / processing the applications for postgraduate courses for two Academic Years – i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also.”

Additionally, Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was invoked for providing false evidence in judicial proceedings.

Arguments

The College argued that the inspection conducted on September 25-26, 2017, was unfair. They claimed that the absence of six faculty members was due to police summons related to a motor accident case. They also asserted that there were 365 patients in the hospital at the time of inspection, supported by computerized data from the Medical Records Department.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Union of India contended that the College had fabricated records and manipulated data to show compliance with minimum standards. They highlighted the deficiencies found during the inspection, including low bed occupancy, lack of surgeries and deliveries, inflated clinical data, and faculty shortages. They also argued that the College had submitted forged documents and employed teachers with fake credentials in previous instances.

The MCI also pointed out that the college had indulged in fraud by showing persons who were not sick as patients only for the purpose of showing compliance of the minimum requirements.

The arguments are summarized in the following table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues can be inferred from the content of the judgment:

• Whether the medical college had fabricated records and misrepresented facts to secure permission for admitting students.
• Whether the deficiencies identified by the MCI during the inspection were valid and sufficient to deny permission.
• Whether the College’s claim regarding the absence of faculty members due to police summons was true.
• Whether the College had engaged in fraudulent practices by showing persons who were not sick as patients.
• What penalties should be imposed on the College for its fraudulent conduct.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the Committee’s report, concluded that the College had engaged in fraudulent practices and misrepresentation. The Court rejected the College’s arguments and imposed significant penalties.

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

The Supreme Court rejected the apology offered by the College, stating that it was not made in good grace. The Court emphasized that every litigant must approach the court with clean hands and that the College’s conduct was reprehensible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the evidence of fraudulent practices and misrepresentation by the College. The Court was particularly concerned with the College’s attempt to mislead the authorities and the Court itself. The following points weighed heavily in the mind of the Court:

The ratio of fact to law is as follows:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual findings of the Committee’s report, which exposed the College’s fraudulent activities. The legal provisions were applied to these facts to justify the penalties imposed.

Key Takeaways

• Medical colleges must maintain accurate records and adhere to all regulatory standards.
• Fabricating records and misrepresenting facts can lead to severe penalties, including financial penalties, debarment from admitting students, and criminal prosecution.
• The Supreme Court will not tolerate attempts to mislead the court or other authorities.
• Students affected by fraudulent practices are entitled to refunds and compensation.
• This judgment serves as a deterrent for other institutions contemplating similar fraudulent practices.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Dean of the College, Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, is liable for prosecution under Section 193 of the IPC. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court was directed to initiate the prosecution in a competent court in Delhi.
• The College is barred from making admissions for the 1st Year MBBS course for the next two years (2018-19 and 2019-2020).
• A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College, to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
• The students are entitled to a refund of the fees paid for admission to the College for the academic year 2017-18, and the College is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. One Lakh to each student.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that medical colleges must adhere to all regulatory standards and maintain accurate records. Any attempt to fabricate records or misrepresent facts to secure permission for admitting students will be met with severe penalties. This case reinforces the principle that institutions must approach the court and other authorities with clean hands and that fraudulent practices will not be tolerated. This judgment does not change any previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing legal framework and sets a precedent for dealing with fraudulent practices in medical education.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University vs. Union of India serves as a strong message to medical colleges and other educational institutions that fraudulent practices and misrepresentation will not be tolerated. The Court’s decision to penalize the College with a fine, a ban on admissions, and the prosecution of its Dean underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and honesty in the education sector. This judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that institutions adhere to regulatory standards and act responsibly.