Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 419(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014, namely :-

1. (1) These rules may be called the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Amendment Rules, 2020.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (Six Months Training) Rules, 2014.(hereinafter referred to as the said rules),

(a) In rule 6 for sub-rule (2), the following sub-rules shall be substituted namely

“(2) The existing registered medical practitioners, who are conducting ultrasound procedures in a Genetic Clinic or Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging Centre on the basis of one year experience or six months training are exempted from undertaking the said training provided they are able to qualify the competency based assessment as specified in Schedule II.

(3) If a medical practitioner fails to clear the said competency based examination after three attempts, he shall undertake the complete six months training, as provided under these rules, for the purpose of renewal of registration.”

Read the detailed rules here: NOTIFICATION

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

[Notification dt. 26-06-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and K.K. Tated, J. addressed a matter wherein non-production of prescription for COVID-19 test and to allow testing to be done irrespective of whether a person has come in contact with a COVID-19 patient or not has been prayed.

Petitioner seeks direction to do away with the production of a prescription/certificate of a medical practitioner as a pre-condition to test for COVID-19 and to allow such testing to be done irrespective of whether a person is symptomatic and has come in contact with a COVID-19 patient.

Interim relief was also sought by the petitioner on above lines.

Bench on consideration of the above issue opined that there has to be a rational use of testing kits and the present situation is not such warranting grant of interim relief.

Respondents have been asked to file their respective affidavits.

Matter to be listed in due course. [Narendra Murkumbi v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 720, decided on 19-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Alok Aradhe, J. allowed a petition praying for quashing an order whereby the Principal Civil Judge took cognizance of an alleged negligent act against a doctor; on the grounds of violation of the due process of law and action being barred by limitation.

The petitioner, a medical practitioner, on being consulted by the respondent who was a chronic tobacco chewer having difficulty in opening his mouth, administered treatment to the respondent for a period of 13 days. Following which, the respondent allegedly encountered side effects of medicines and developed a puss formation in the back jaw. Three years later, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 284 and 326 of the Penal Code, 1860. The same was taken cognizance of and the petitioner inter alia sought quashing of proceedings. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether cognizance of a complaint about offence constituting medical negligence can be taken without referring to an expert’s opinion?

The petitioner was represented by Bharath Kumar who contested that taking cognizance for offence as alleged was in violation of the prescribed process of law inasmuch as no expert opinion was obtained before doing so. Reliance was placed on Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1. Further, it was contested that limitation for one year was overdue to which the complaint could not have been admitted. else the same would be impermissible in law. The counsel for the respondent, however, did not concur with such claims and supported the passed order.

The Court’s conclusion relied on the two-fold argument presented. It relied on the Martin F D’Souza case and held that taking cognizance of offence against a medical practitioner without referring to an opinion of an expert doctor is impermissible. It was also held that and the complaint filed by the respondent was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the statutorily prescribed period of one year.

In light of the aforesaid rationale, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order. [Prabhakar v. K. Sigbathulla, Criminal Petition No. 2678 of 2017, decided on 31-05-2019]