Mahakaushal Clinical Pathologists and Diagnosticians Association, Jabalpur vs State of M. P. and Others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order passed by learned Single Judge on January, 13, 2003 in Smt. Kamla Patel vs. State of M.P. and others (W. P. No. 3721/2002).

Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal may be mentioned:

Smt. Kamla Patel was running a Pathology Laboratory in the name of "Maruti Clinical Pathology". Complaint was received by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jabalpur from Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jabalpur that she is not holding recognized qualification for running the Pathological Laboratory. The Sub Divisional Magistrate took cognizance against the laboratory as Smt. Kamla Patel did not possess recognized qualification. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was of the opinion that the reports prepared by non-qualified person may adversely affect the health of people. A prohibitory order was issued by him on April, 15th, 1999 whereby the Petitioner was stopped from running her laboratory. In the final order dated 24-4-1999 the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered that Smt. Kamla Patel cannot run the Pathology Laboratory independently, but can work under any qualified pathologist. On June, 29th 2002 the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jabalpur issued a letter directing the Petitioner to stop running of the laboratory.

The Petitioner challenged this order dated 29-6-2002 passed by Chief Medical and Health Officer before learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3721/2002. During the pendency of the petition the order dated 29-6-2002 was modified by Chief Medical and Health Officer and it was directed vide letter dated August, 5, 2000 the Petitioner can run the Laboratory and do the work of only routine urine and blood sugar examination under the guidance of pathologist and will not work independently.

The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties to the petition also the intervenors decided the petition and in order to stop the running of ill-equipped and illegally run pathological laboratories directed the State authorities as under:

The pathology labs are run by pathologist who is qualified under M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 and fulfils the requirement of Sections 13 and 24 of the said Act.

No laboratory technician is allowed to run the laboratory. Laboratory technician can only work in laboratory which is actually run by qualified pathologist.

Laboratory technician possesses the recognized qualification and has the right to do so under the M.P. Chikitsiya Parishad Adhiniyam, 2000.

The only those tests are allowed to be performed in the laboratories for which they are equipped; blanket permission to run the laboratory be not given.

There should be periodical inspection of the pathological laboratories to ensure that they are being properly run by pathologist and they are equipped, for the kind of tests they are performing and have the due permission for that.

Pathological laboratories in which pathologist is not working should be verified and functioning be stopped forthwith on inspection being made.

Let the report about the various pathological laboratories be furnished within a month from the date of this decision before this Court. The State may take action and direct the concerned CHMO of the various Districts to make the verification of the laboratories in the terms mentioned above and to obtain the report. Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare is directed to ensure that pathological laboratories are run properly in the State and to ensure the compliance of the directions made in this order. CHMO, Jabalpur is also to make verifications of all laboratories in Jabalpur and submit report as directed.

The order (R/4) dated 5-8-2002 is quashed. Let compliance reports, on being filed be registered as MCC as and when the same is filed. Let copy of this order be also forwarded to the council under M.P. Sahchikitsiya Parishad Adhiniyam for taking action in terms of this order and also to look into the matter.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred this appeal. We have heard Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Admittedly, the appellant association was not party to the said writ petition. The appellant association is not running any pathological laboratory. We are afraid Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the Association is not maintainable. Thus, without going into the merits of controversy raised in this Letters Patent Appeal the same is dismissed. However, if any individual member has grievance against the order in Writ Petition No. 3721/02, he may challenge the same, if permissible under law.

With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.