A doctor in Ahmedabad has approached the High Court bench to demand the right to practice medicine in Gujarat. The State Government denied her registration due to pending rural service for one year, despite obtaining a PG diploma degree in child healthcare from an autonomous body in Mumbai. The doctor has challenged the state’s decision, arguing that the mandatory rural service rule applies only to postgraduate students in Gujarat and not to her.
The Gujarat Medical Council passed a resolution in 2011, Clause 7 of which mandated rural service for doctors. The state introduced this policy to address the shortage of specialists in the region. As a result, the resolution included the condition of rural service after the implementation of new PG courses and an increase in PG seats through legislation.
The doctor in question is from the Aravalli district and completed her MBBS at M.S. University in Vadodara. Subsequently, she enrolled in a PG Diploma program in child healthcare at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Mumbai. After receiving her degree, she obtained registration from the previous Medical Council of India (now replaced by the National Medical Commission) and received a provisional certificate to practice in Gujarat. However, she was unable to continue her practice after one year.
In 2020, the concerned doctor filed a plea with the Gujarat High Court bench, stating that since she obtained her PG Diploma degree from Mumbai, the State of Gujarat did not fund her education. Therefore, she argued that it is not necessary for her to undergo rural service, according to the Times of India. Additionally, the doctor informed the HC bench that she was formerly registered with the MCI, and as a result, she should be permitted to practice medicine throughout the country. The doctor further argued that the State authorities cannot deny her registration, thus preventing her from practicing medicine in Gujarat.
The doctor informed the bench that she had paid a penalty amount of Rs 1.5 lakh in 2020 to be released from her bond for one-year service after completing her MBBS course. Additionally, during the hearing, the doctor pointed out the conflict between the provision of not granting final registration without rural service and the provisions under Section 26 of the Medical Council of India Act, citing Section 28 of the GMC Act.
According to the doctor’s argument, the Medical Council of India (MCI) Act is a parliamentary law that permits a doctor to practice medicine anywhere in India. Furthermore, the act requires the state to maintain two registers, and once the MCI registers a candidate’s qualifications, the state authorities must update their register and allow the MCI-registered doctor to practice medicine in the state. The Times of India reports that in response to this argument, the High Court bench has asked the Gujarat Medical Council whether it maintains two separate registers or a single register divided into two parts under the GMC Act and MCI Act. Additionally, the court has raised questions about whether a doctor’s provisional registration allows them to practice beyond one year.
