DR.M.C.GUPTA's comments on gujrat high court's order against lab technicians signing the lab reports.

The Gujarat High Court delivered a judgment on 17 September 2010 in several writ petitions which were clubbed together. The case is titled as Association of Pathologist & Ors v. Secretary Health & Ors. The judgment was given by a bench comprising of HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER.

The judgment can be viewed at

http://164.100.52.47/gujarathc/showoj.jsp?hidTxtVal=./showoj.jsp?side=C&casetype=SCA&caseno=7999&caseyr=1998&orddate=
17/09/2010&ordno=6&side=C&casetype=SCA&caseno=
7999&caseyr=1998&orddate=17/09/2010&ordno=6

2--The main writ petition was filed in 1998 by the Association of Pathologists for prohibiting the 5th respondent Â United Clinical Laboratory, Kalanala, Bhavnagar and other persons from running laboratory of pathology in the State of Gujarat with further prayer to direct other respondent Â Officers of the State to take legal and criminal action against the persons who are running laboratory of pathology without requisite qualifications. Thus, a prayer was made to ensure that no such laboratory is allowed to operate without qualified pathologists. Subsequently, North Gujarat Pathologists Association , North Gujarat Pathologists Association and Gujarat Association of Pathologist and Microbiologist also filed separate writ petitions on similar grounds. Two petitioners filed separate petitions in favour of the lab technicians.

3—The judgment is summarized in para 33 as follows:

33. We accordingly hold that the Laboratory Technicians being not Pathologists cannot run any laboratory independently. They cannot directly give any report to any patient or any other individual, or to any institution or practicing doctor, without the authentication of the same by the pathologist registered with the Medical Council. Though it is open to any person or institute to run a pathology laboratory, but no report can be issued without the signature or counter signature of the practicing pathologist recognized by the Medical Council of India. The respondents are directed to ensure that no pathology laboratory is run by any unqualified person or institute having no recognized pathologists registered with the Medical Council. However, if such pathological laboratory is run by a pathologist registered with the Medical Council, or if such pathological laboratory engages a pathologist registered with the Medical Council, the respondents may allow such laboratory to run. Individual Laboratory Technician cannot be allowed to run pathological laboratory independently without engaging a pathologist registered with the Medical Council.”

4—The counsel for the Gujarat medical Council relied upon the judgment of the Court noted with approval the following from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Patel vs. State of MP, reported in AIR 2007 MP 1925, wherein the Court decided the issue in question and held as follows :-

  ”13. The aforesaid analysis of the provisions of the law prescribing the profession or technical qualifications necessary for the practice of medicine and the law prescribing the qualifications for running a pathology laboratory would show that laboratory technicians registered as a paramedical practitioner under the Adhiniyam, 2000, cannot sign or authenticate any pathological test/report or certificate and he can only assist the pathologist registered in the State Medical Register as a medical practitioner in carrying out the technical tests in the pathology laboratory. In other words, a laboratory technician registered as a paramedical practitioner under the Adhiniyam, 2000 can only assist the pathologist in the technical tests in a pathology laboratory in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but he cannot sign or authenticate any certificate or test report relating to pathology and such certificate or test report can only be signed and authenticated by a pathologist having the required qualification such as MBBS, MD or other degrees as mentioned in the Act, 1956, and also registered as a medical practitioner in the State Medical Register under the Adhiniyam, 1987.”

5—The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Association of Pathologists, along with similar other petitions, and dismissed the others. In doing so, the court did not lay new ground. The judgment was on the same lines as the MP High Court judgment. The importance of this judgment lies in the fact that various High Courts (MP, Bombay, Nagpur, Gujarat) have deliberated on the issue and given consistently similar judgments.

Now, A.P. high court also given same type of judgment. Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently decided in favour of pathologists in a WP against DMLT labs etc.

6—It is interesting to note that the lab technicians advanced the argument that the counsel for the lab technicians pleaded that the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories recognizes persons who are not pathologists as persons having knowledge and competent to sign report of tests done in laboratory. For instance, the qualification norms for authorized signatories provides that a person with qualification M.Sc. in Medical Biochemistry with 5 years experience or M.Sc. in Biochemistry with 7 years experience in Medical Laboratory shall be authorized signatory for the disciplines Â Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Pathology, Routine Hematology, Routine Microbiology and Serology. Similarly, persons with M.Sc. (Microbiology) and B.Sc. (Biochemistry) have been recognized as authorized signatory for microbiology and serology. Such argument failed to impress the Court.