CAN BAMS, BHMS PRACTICE ALOPATHY ......??????????

READ THIS AND DECIDE

Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Respondent 1, having practiced Allopathy, without being
qualified in that system, was guilty of Negligence per se and, therefore,
the appeal against him has to be allowed in consonance with the maxim Sic
Utere tuo ut alienum non loedas (a person is held liable at law for the
consequences of his negligence). Since the deceased had already suffered at
the hands of Respondent No. 1 and his condition had already been damaged to
an unascertainable extent before he was shifted to the clinic of Respondent
No. 2 it is not proper to proceed against Respondent No. 2 specially in
view of the report of the Board consisting of the Professors of AIIMS.
[695-B-D]

1.2. A combined reading of the Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959.
the Indian Medjcal Council Act, 1956 and the Maharashtra Medical Council
Act, 1965 indicates that a person who is registered under the Bombay
Homoeopathic Practitioners' Act, 1959 can practice Homoeopathy only and
that he cannot be registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or
under the State Act, namely, the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965,
because of the restriction of persons not possessing the requisite
qualification. So also, a person possessing the qualification mentioned in
the Schedule appended to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the
Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 cannot be registered as a Medical
Practitioner under the Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959, as he
does not possess any qualification in Homoeopathic System of Medicine. The
significance of mutual exclusion is relevant inasmuch as the right to
practice in any particular system of medicine is dependent upon
registration which is permissible only if qualification, and that too,
recognised qualification, is possessed by a person in that system. [690-C-
E]
1.3. But merely because the Anatomy and Physiology are similar, it does
not mean that a person having studied one System of Medicine can claim to
treat the patient by drugs of another System which he might not have
studied at any stage. No doubt, study of Physiology and Anatomy is common
in all systems of Medicines and the students belonging to different Systems
of Medicines may be taught Physiology and Anatomy together, but so far as
the study of drugs is concerned, the pharmacology of all systems is
entirely different. [690-H; 691-A-B]

1.4. Since the law under which Respondent No. 1 was registered as Medical
Practitioner, required him to practice in HOMOEOPATHY ONLY, he was under a
statutory duty not to enter the field of any other System of Medicine as,
admittedly, he was not qualified in the other system, Allopathy, to be
precise. He trespassed into a prohibited field and was liable to be
prosecuted under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. His
conduct amounted to an actionable negligence particularly as the duty of
care indicated by this court in DR. LAXMAN JOSHI'S CASE WAS BREACHED BY HIM
ON ALL THE THREE COUNTS INDICATED THEREIN. A person who does not have
knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System
is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge of skill, or to put it
differently, a Charlatan. [691-D-F; 692-B]