The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has clarified that the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMC Act) does not contain any provision for conferring the title ‘Doctor’ on qualified medical professionals. Thus, the Court ruled that the expression title used in Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act cannot be understood as statutorily entitling the qualified medical professionals to prefix ‘Dr’ to their names.
The Court pointed out that in the absence of such provision, the IAPMR (petitioners) cannot claim exclusive right to use the prefix ‘Dr’, and remarked the contention that the title ‘Doctor’ exclusively belongs to medical professionals as a misconception.
The Court went on to highlight that the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Profession Act, 2021 (NCAHP Act), is a specific and subsequent parliamentary enactment with an overriding effect (under Section 64) that creates a distinct regulatory framework for allied and healthcare professionals.
Hence, the judiciary should not interfere with or “read down” its provisions, which reflect a deliberate legislative policy to recognize the independent and multi-disciplinary role of these professionals, added the Court.
Further, the Court pointed out that the prefix “Dr.” is not a title statutorily and exclusively conferred upon medical professionals under the NMC Act. In the absence of such a statutory monopoly, other professionals who are permitted by their own regulatory framework (the NCAHP Act) cannot be prohibited from using the title, especially given its broader historical and academic origins.
Accordingly, the Court refused to read down the provisions of the NCAHP Act or its appended Schedule and declined to issue an order preventing Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists from using the prefix “Dr.” or acting as first-contact healthcare providers within the scope defined by their governing statute.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. G. Arun acknowledged the evolution of healthcare towards a multi-disciplinary, patient-centric approach, which led to the enactment of the NCAHP Act to regulate allied and healthcare professionals, which was a result of recommendations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee and extensive deliberations.
The Bench noted that the definition of a “healthcare professional” under Section 2(j) of the NCAHP Act explicitly allows them to provide “preventive, curative, rehabilitative, therapeutic or promotional health services”. However, the Bench clarified that this does not permit them to prescribe medicines or provide allopathic treatment, making their services distinct from those of medical professionals.
The Bench found no compelling reason to “read down” the provisions of the NCAHP Act, and highlighted that interfering with the government’s policy and the legislative framework at the instance of a few medical professionals would be inappropriate, especially given the Act’s overriding effect under Section 64 and the involvement of the National Medical Commission in the process.
Lastly, the Bench explained that the term “Doctor” originated from the Latin word for “teacher” and evolved into an academic title. It is not exclusive to medical professionals, as individuals with higher educational qualifications like a PhD are also entitled to use it. Crucially, the Bench found that the NMC Act does not contain any provision conferring the title “Doctor” on qualified medical professionals or granting them an exclusive right to use it.
Briefly, the petitioners, who are qualified medical professionals in modern scientific medicine, filed petitions challenging the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Profession Act, 2021 (the NCAHP Act) and the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy. Their primary grievance was that the Act and the curriculum grant powers and status to Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists that are contrary to the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (the NMC Act).
The petitioners contended that Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists should only provide supporting services to qualified doctors and do not possess the qualification or right to act as first-hand healthcare professionals. They were particularly aggrieved by the provision allowing these professionals to use the prefix “Dr.” with the suffix “PT” or “OT”, arguing this would equate them with modern medical practitioners in the eyes of the public.
The petitioners sought a declaration to read down the scope of “Physiotherapy Professional” and “Occupational Therapy Professional” in the NCAHP Act, to confine their services to a supporting role for medical professionals under the NMC Act. They also sought to quash or read down specific clauses in the competency-based curriculum that position these professionals as first-contact healthcare providers and permit the use of the “Dr.” prefix.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate V.V. Asokan, along with Advocates S. Parvathi, T.K. Sreekala, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, and K.G. Anil, for the Petitioners
Senior Advocates S. Sreekumar, George Poonthottam, and P.B. Krishnan, along with Advocates V. Ramkumar Nambiar, Vineeth Komalachandran, O.M. Shalina, K.S. Premjith Kumar, Mahadev M.J., Silpa Sreekumar, P.B. Subramanyan, Manu Vyasan Peter, Nisha George, and Sabu George, for the Respondents
