In the absence of any specific or special rules for additional intake of students, the MCI cannot deny the approval on discrepancies, when the said discrepancies were also explained by the petitioner college and they were mere discrepancies and not deficiencies.
Chennai: Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital (SBMCH) is likely to witness an increase in the number of PG medical seats as the Madras High Court has quashed an order of the Medical Council of India (MCI) that rejected the application of the medical college towards an increase in PG Medical seats.
Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital which was originally established in the year 2003 and from the year 2003-2004, has been running the college successfully for M.B.B.S. Course and also was accorded Post Graduate Courses in nine subjects. The medical college had applied to the MCI for a letter for permission for an increase in the admission capacity with respect to the nine postgraduate courses reiterating that it had applied with the infrastructural, teaching and other requirements, which are already existing.
Pursuant to the proposal submitted, theMCI had conducted a surprise inspection on 25.06.2018 with respect to the five specialties, namely, Respiratory Medicine, Anesthesiology, Radio Diagnosis, Orthopaedics and General Surgery by five different team of Inspectors of the second respondent. Again, on the next day, i.e., on 26.06.2018, another team of Inspectors of the second respondent conducted a surprise inspection for the remaining four specialties, namely, General Medicine, Dermatology/Venerology/Leprosy, Paediatrics & Obstetrics and gynaecology. The Inspecting Teams did not find any deficiency in the instructional or infrastructural facilities
Another surprise inspection was conducted a month later and the college submitted various documents as required. While the medical College was expecting a positive response from MCI, a notice dated 07.09.2018 was issued calling upon the medical College to appear before the Post Graduate Committee on 18.09.2018 to explain certain “discrepancies” observed by the said Committee in its meeting held on 06.09.2018.
The college dean submitted documents for the discrepancies, but was once again asked to appear before the MCI after the council was superseded by the MCI Board of Governors
The “discrepancy” was with respect to the bed occupancy on the one hand and fresh daily admissions on the other hand. The order also pointed out only certain discrepancies and not deficiencies, as required by the MCI. Despite the clarification being given by the medical College, the college was denied permission to increase in PG Medical seats
The reasons attributed by the second respondent in rejecting the proposal of the petitioner College are on the ground that (i) there are discrepancies between the two assessment reports with regard to IPD figures ; (ii) Gross differences in the figures related to Day Care Operations in two Departments ; (iii) Absence of commensurate increase in the workload in surgical departments ; and (iv) Due to erroneous depiction of Surgery IPD figures, which raises doubt about the workload.
Challenging the MCI denial of seats, the petitioner approached the High court calling the order that it is imaginary, unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed.The petitioner clarifed before the court how differently bed occupancy and daily admissions are calculated. However, the explanation offered by the petitioner College for the discrepancy in figures in respect of the two reports was rejected on the ground that the institution is more than 15 years old and submission made by it does not explain the discrepancy properly.
Admittedly, there is no deficiency in any of the infrastructural, teaching and other requirements prescribed by the MCI for grant of permission to increase the intake capacity of the students in Post Graduate Medical Courses. According to the petitioner, there were two sets of inspections by the second respondent and requisite
data and details were made available by the petitioner College to the said inspecting teams in relation to every relevant work including the bed occupancy and fresh daily admission
The court noted the submission of the petitioner college that both bed occupancy and daily admisisons are calculated using different formulas.
When this Court put a specific question as to whether the second respondent has got any method or norm based on which, the IPD and total daily admissions are computed, on instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent/MCI stated that there is no specific formula for the same.
It is also stated that there is no specific norms. As stated earlier, clause 11.3 of the 2000 Regulations deals with the bed strength in clinical departments, which merely says that a department to be recognised for training of postgraduate students shall have at least 60 beds each of General Medicine, General Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology and 30 beds each for others specialties for Degree and Diploma courses and 20 beds each in case of Super Specialty courses. The petitioner, having applied for increase in intake of Post Graduate students, had already complied with the MCI norms of students for Post Graduate Courses.
Excepting the above, there is no specific ratio mentioning about the number of beds for number of PG student. In the absence of verification of the original records by the inspection teams, it will not lie in the mouth of the MCI that the records are falsified. It is also not the case of the second respondent that the petitioner College refused to furnish the original records. It cannot take away the valuable rights of the petitioner College for no fault of theirs.
the court further noted
In the case on hand, it is the claim of the petitioner College that it had applied for the additional intake of PG students only on the strength of the fact that it has already complied with the norms of MCI. In the absence of any specific or special rules for additional intake of students,MCI cannot deny the approval on discrepancies, when the said “discrepancies” were also explained by the petitioner College and they are mere discrepancies and not deficiency. In the absence of any deficiency, the disapproval of the second respondent cannot be sustained.
The judge said it was the claim of the petitioner that it had applied for additional intake of PG students only on the strength of the fact that it has already complied with the norms of MCI.
Deliberating the matter, Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana held that the MCI’s rejection of the proposal is based solely on grounds of discrepancies. Complying by this, the court remitted back to MCI/Central Government for the reconsideration to grant permission to the college, if otherwise, SBMCH is entitled to the proposal already submitted for the academic year 2020-2021.