Govt, MCI to reply on plea to recognise foreign PG med degree

The Delhi High Court today sought response from the government and Medical Council of India (MCI) on a plea seeking recognition of foreign post-graduate medical degrees in India.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw asked MCI and Health Ministry to file counter affidavit on the plea filed by four doctors with post-graduate qualification from the Zheng Zhou University at China.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the doctors, contended that under the existing provisions of law and rules of MCI, one cannot practice in India as specialist doctor with a foreign degree.
The bench, however, asked the doctors' counsel that "can there be any bar on declaring some doctor as specialist after having a foreign post-graduate degree."

Opposing the petitioners' contention, MCI's counsel said under the existing rule only professionals with foreign primary medical qualification was registered in Indian Medical Register or the State Medical Register after they qualified a screening test.
Four doctors Dr Madhur Eshwar Rao Basude, Dr Harish Kalra, Dr Shreyash Dadasaheb Pattekari and Dr Atul Anantrao Chaudhari, who got post-graduate qualification (MD/MS) from the Chinese University, filed the petition.

MCI is the body responsible for standards of medical education in India and recognition of medical qualifications.
In their pleas, petitioners claimed that MCI did recognise the primary medical degree of Zeng Zhou University/ Hospital after conducting a screening test but they were not conducting any such tests for post-graduate degree from the same university due to which they were unable to practice in India.

"Omission to conduct screening test for foreign post- graduate degree holders gives rise to an anomalous situation; moreso in the instant case as the same university of which the petitioners are alumni of is recognised by the MCI for the purpose of graduation," the petition said.
It stated that in "precluding the specialist doctors, the respondents are not only in violation of the Act, but are also infracting their fundamental rights under the Constitution.