Deals & Matter

Radha Devi Jageshwari Memorial Medical College and Hospital Case

Constitutional & Education Law

Radha Devi Jageshwari Memorial Medical College and Hospital Case
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

The writ petition was filed by Radha Devi Jageshwari Memorial Medical College and Hospital (RDJMMC), Muzaffarpur, a private self-financed institution, before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The dispute arose from the decision of the National Medical Commission (NMC), through its Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB), to withdraw the Letter of Permission (LoP) previously granted to RDJMMC for admitting MBBS students.

NMC had conducted an inspection and, on 18 April 2022, decided to withdraw the permission citing deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty, and patient occupancy. This action threatened to halt admissions, affecting both the institution’s functioning and the future of aspiring medical students.

RDJMMC challenged this action, claiming it was arbitrary, in violation of natural justice, and not reflective of the true position of the college.

Appellant’s Side (RDJMMC)

1. Substantial Investments and Infrastructure Development

RDJMMC highlighted that it had made huge investments to create a full-fledged medical college and teaching hospital. Facilities such as lecture halls, laboratories, libraries, examination halls, and hostels were already operational.

The attached teaching hospital had modern facilities, necessary bed strength, and functional clinical departments. According to the appellant, the infrastructure was not only adequate but went beyond the basic requirements mandated by the NMC.

2. Compliance in Faculty and Staff Appointments

The college argued that it had appointed all required teaching and non-teaching staff.

  • Faculty members were duly qualified, with recognized degrees and registrations.
  • Residents, tutors, and technical staff were present as per prescribed norms.
  • Any claim of shortage was either a misrepresentation or arose from technical errors during the inspection process.
3. Transparency in Operations

RDJMMC insisted that it had adopted complete transparency by maintaining biometric attendance for faculty and digitized records of hospital operations. It emphasized that wherever earlier deficiencies were pointed out, immediate corrective measures were taken, and compliance reports were duly submitted.

4. Faulty and Arbitrary Inspections

A central grievance was that the inspection carried out by NMC was unfair and unscientific.

  • The alleged deficiencies in patient occupancy and faculty availability were based on a single “surprise visit,” ignoring the actual day-to-day strength of the institution.
  • RDJMMC argued that a few hours of inspection could not reflect the true functioning of a medical college and hospital, especially when detailed compliance reports were already filed.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The appellant submitted that it was not provided with a fair opportunity to explain or rectify issues before the permission was withdrawn.

  • The show cause notice dated 15 February 2022 was accompanied by allegations, but the college was not allowed to respond fully.
  • The withdrawal of permission, therefore, amounted to a denial of natural justice.
6. Public Interest and Student Welfare

RDJMMC emphasized that denial of permission would directly harm hundreds of aspiring doctors.

  • Bihar, as a state, already suffers from a shortage of medical professionals and healthcare facilities.
  • Preventing RDJMMC from admitting students would not only damage the careers of young aspirants but also deprive society of much-needed doctors.

The college projected itself as working in furtherance of the national policy of expanding medical education and healthcare facilities.

7. Reliance on Judicial Precedents

The appellant relied on several precedents where courts had held that when substantial compliance exists, institutions should not be penalized for trivial or technical shortcomings.

Thus, RDJMMC sought quashing of NMC’s decision and restoration of its permission to admit students.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

Varun Singh, founding partner at Foresight Law

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

View More
Blogs

The digital transformation of healthcare in India

Public procurement plays a vital role in

View More

Respondent’s Side (NMC and Authorities

Inspection Revealed Deficiencies

  1. Faculty shortage in several departments.
  2. Resident/tutor deficiency near 30%.
  3. Patient bed occupancy significantly below required norms (42% against 60%).
  4. Registered patients lower than mandatory standards.

Strict Statutory Compliance Needed

  1. Medical education directly impacts public health.
  2. Any relaxation in norms would compromise quality and credibility of medical education in India.

Due Process Followed

  1. RDJMMC was issued a show cause notice and asked to explain deficiencies.
  2. The decision was not arbitrary but based on expert findings.

Limited Judicial Review

  1. Courts should not substitute expert medical assessments with judicial reasoning.
  2. Regulatory discretion lies with NMC, and its technical findings deserve deference.

Court’s Observations

The Patna High Court weighed both sides carefully and made significant observations:

  • Balance Between Standards and Fairness
  1. While high standards in medical education are crucial, regulatory authorities must act fairly and reasonably.
  2. Denying permission without considering compliance efforts would be unjust.
  • Students’ Interests Paramount
  1. The Court stressed that the careers of students and the healthcare needs of society cannot be sacrificed for minor deficiencies.
  2. Substantial compliance with norms is sufficient; trivial gaps should not result in denial.
  • Natural Justice
  1. The Court noted that if the college was not given proper opportunity to explain its position, the denial could amount to breach of natural justice.
  • Judicial Oversight
  1. Though the Court recognized that regulatory authorities are experts, judicial intervention is justified where arbitrariness or unfairness is apparent.

Court’s Decision

The Court provided relief to the appellant institution:

  • Direction to Reconsider
  1. The NMC was directed to reconsider RDJMMC’s case in light of compliance reports and documents already submitted.
  • Minor Deficiencies Not Fatal
  1. The Court held that minor deficiencies should not deprive hundreds of students of education when substantial compliance exists.
  • Fair Hearing Mandated
  1. The regulatory body must provide a proper hearing before taking adverse decisions.
  • Fresh Decision Ordered
  1. The matter was remitted to NMC for fresh consideration, with directions to decide expeditiously so that admissions are not delayed.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top