NEWS TODAY 28.01.2026

 

NMC took up 185 doc appeals, nixed 256 by patients in 5 yrs

NMC took up 185 doc appeals, nixed 256 by patients in

 5 yrs 

Ethics Board Says Non-Med Practitioners Can’t File Appeals

 Rema.Nagarajan@timesofindia.com 28.01.2026

In response to a Right to Information application, National Medical Commission (NMC) has revealed it has taken up 185 appeals by doctors against state medical councils’ decisions from its inception in Sept 2020 till Jan 2026, while it has returned 256 appeals filed by patients in the same period. Recently, health ministry had asked the commission to consider hearing appeals filed by patients and/or their relatives against state council rulings on alleged negligence by doctors. 

Responding to a complaint by an RTI activist and ophthalmologist Dr KV Babu, who has been following up the issue of patients’ appeals being rejected, policy division of health ministry asked NMC to “take necessary action in accordance with the law”. In his complaint, Dr Babu urged the ministry to take action against NMC members who took “an illegal decision” in 2021 to return appeals filed by patients claiming NMC Act did not allow them to appeal. In Oct 2021, NMC’s Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB) had decided that in keeping with NMC Act, 2019, “only medical practitioners or professionals should be allowed as (sic) appeals before EMRB”. Section 30(3) of NMC Act states that medical professionals aggrieved by state council decisions can appeal. Though nothing in the section expressly bars patients from filing appeals, EMRB inserted the word “only” medical practitioners into its reading of the section in its Oct 2021 meeting. “Ever since NMC was formed, they have been rejecting, on average, one patient appeal every week, 256 rejections in more than five years. 

There is no explicit provision in NMC Act which bars the hearing of appeals from the public. If anything, the act clearly mandates that NMC is to adopt earlier statutory provisions of MCI. Rejecting patient appeals has been illegal right from  in the 16th meeting of NMC it was agreed that all appeals received by EMRB will be entertained. However, EMRB has continued to reject appeals coming to it,” said Dr Babu. The draft amendment of NMC Act contains a provision that explicitly provides for the public to file appeals before NMC’s EMRB against decisions of state councils. Recently, health ministry had asked the commission to consider hearing appeals filed by patients and/or their relatives against state council rulings

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 28.01.2026

Kochi : The Kerala high court has ruled that not only medical professionals, but physiotherapists and occupational therapists, too, are entitled to use the prefix ‘Dr’ with their names.

Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the state chapter of Indian Medical Association and others, which had challenged the use of the prefix by physiotherapists and occupational therapists, Justice V G Arun said there was no legal bar on such professionals prefixing ‘Dr’ to their name. The petitioners contended that while specialist medical professionals in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation are qualified doctors, physiotherapists and occupational therapists merely provide supportive services. They argued that such professionals do not possess the qualification to function as first-contact healthcare providers, and that their qualifications, at best, enable them to administer physiotherapy under the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner. 

The petitioners also challenged the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, which permits the use of the prefix ‘Dr’ with the suffix ‘PT’/‘OT’, contending that this equates them with modern medical practitioners. 

The HC, however, noted that the term ‘doctor’ originates from the Latin word doctor, meaning teacher or instructor, and that neither the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act nor allied statutes provide for the exclusive use of the prefix ‘Dr’ by qualified medical professionals. 

In the absence of such statutory provisions, the petitioners could not claim an exclusive right to use the prefix ‘Dr’, the bench said.