Medical Council of India vs Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

HELD: 1.1 Though Regulation 8 (3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 was challenged in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and 2, they did not press the relief. They restricted their challenge to the manner in which the inspection was done and for a direction to the appellant-Council to carry out a fresh inspection. The interpretation of Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) by the High Court is patently erroneous in as much as the High Court did not take note of the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1). Without a proper examination of the provision, the High Court fell in error in holding that Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) would be applicable only to the Colleges seeking second renewal i.e. admissions of the third batch. Admissions upto the second renewal i.e. admissions to third batch would fall under Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a). In other words, the proviso is not restricted only to second renewal cases. Even the first renewal is covered by proviso (a) to Regulation 8 (3) (1) as the language used is “upto second renewal”. There is no conflict between Section 10-A (3) and (4) of the Act on one hand and Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) on the other. Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) is complementary to Section 10-A of the Act. Fixing minimum standards which have to be fulfilled for the purpose of enabling a medical College to seek fresh inspection would not be contrary to the scheme of Section 10-A. In fact, Regulation 8 (3) (1) provides that an opportunity shall be given to the medical College to rectify the defects. But, the proviso contemplates that certain minimum standards are to be satisfied i.e. there should not be deficiency of teaching faculty and/or residents more than 30 per cent and/or bed occupancy should not be less than 50 per cent. This prescription of standards for availing an opportunity to seek re-inspection is not ultra vires either the Regulation or Section 10-A of the Act. [Para 9][10-B-F]

1.2 On perusal of the material on record, the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at

45.30 per cent on random verification was the claim of respondent No.1 and 2. However, the inspection report shows that out of required minimum of 300 patients only 3 were available at 10.00 am on 25th September, 2017. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical College are inadequate, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in the inspection, jurisdictional error on the part of the M.C.I., etc. The submission relating to the cyclone being a reason for the number of patients being less is not acceptable. It is accepted that the Resident Doctors are required to be in the hospital at all points of time. [Para 10][10-G-H; 11-AB]

1.3 In view of the large scale deficiencies found in the inspection reports and in view of Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a), the respondent No.1 and 2 are not entitled to claim another inspection. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 11, 12][11-C-D]

Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403; Royal Medical Trust (Registered) v. Union of India (2015) 10 SCC 19 – referred to.