#Medical Law

Allahabad High Court rules that practitioners holding only electrohomeopathy certificates cannot legally operate allopathic clinics, reinforcing that valid registration under the allopathic system is mandatory. The judgment prioritizes public health protections over individual claims, setting a clear precedent for medical licensing compliance.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that no criminal complaint for medical negligence can proceed without a preliminary assessment by a constitutionally mandated District Level Expert Committee. This procedural safeguard ensures that allegations are vetted by medical experts before triggering criminal proceedings, protecting healthcare providers from frivolous FIRs while upholding the right to life and health under Article 21. The directive applies to all district medical officers and police authorities across Kerala.

The Supreme Court ruled that an inadvertent billing error, promptly corrected with refund, does not constitute criminal cheating under Section 420 IPC. The judgment clarifies that absent fraudulent intent or dishonest concealment, mere billing discrepancies-even in medical services-cannot sustain criminal proceedings, offering relief to healthcare providers facing similar complaints.

The Supreme Court has ruled that disciplinary authorities cannot impose penalties based on allegations not included in the original show cause notice, even if the charges evolve during proceedings. This reinforces that professionals in regulated fields like medicine are entitled to clear, timely notice of accusations against them - ensuring fair hearing under Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.

Bombay High Court holds that claim of good faith under MTP Act for termination beyond 20 weeks cannot be decided at discharge stage; trial necessary to assess intent and medical necessity.

Uttarakhand High Court holds hospitals vicariously liable for doctor negligence, even under Medical Council Act, affirming accountability in healthcare delivery.

Supreme Court holds that stem cell therapy for Autism Spectrum Disorder cannot be offered as a commercial clinical service; only permissible in approved clinical trials under strict regulatory oversight.