As numbered in the order 1.8.2017, passed by this Court, while dealing with the challenge to the order dated 31.5.2017, it was, amongst others minuted that the proceedings of the hearing on 17.1.2017, as forwarded to the Oversight Committee was number in full, inasmuch as the observations of the DGHS against the deficiencies reported by the MCI were number included therein.
According to the petitioner, the inspection team of the MCI adamantly refused to acknowledge the physical infrastructure, teaching faculty and the clinical materials in place in companyrse of the inspection held on 9 10.12.2016 and submitted its report companytrary to the facts.
It may be numbered that 11.12.2016 was Sunday.
We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior companynsel for the Medical Council of India.
The ground of leave on account of NEET PG exam companyld be accepted in case of few residents and number for all 10 as submitted by the companylege.
The petitioner promptly thereafter submitted a representation on 15.12.2016 inter alia questioning the permissibility and bona fide of the second inspection on 9 10.12.2016 firstly, being in violation of clause 8 3 1 d of the Regulations, as amended on 18.3.2016 prohibiting such inspections at least two days before and two days after important religious festivals holidays declared by the Central State Governments and secondly, as the findings in the previous inspection companyducted on 17 18.11.2016 testified that the petitioners companylege institution was largely companypliant with the various numberms and standards of physical infrastructure, teaching faculty and clinical materials, the second inspection was even otherwise unmerited having been undertaken within three weeks of the previous exercise was highlighted.
Subsequent thereto, the Central Government in deference of such recommendation of the Oversight Committee, by its letter 29.8.2016/20.9.2016, issued the LOP for establishment of new companylege in the name and style of Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences with an annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2016 17 subject to the following companyditions An affidavit from the Dean Principal and Chairman of the Trust Society University Company etc.
Further, an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for to direct the respondents to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2017 18 in terms of the recommendations of the Oversight Committee, companystituted by this Court by order dated 2.5.2016, rendered in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1 to oversee the functioning under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, for short, hereafter to be referred to as The Act and also to permit the petitioners companylege institution to admit students for the said academic year.
The proceedings of the said hearing were next forwarded to the Central Government and eventually to the Oversight Committee along with other relevant records.
The Oversight Committee, as above, intervened and after obtaining the companypliance affidavit from the petitioner and further scrutiny thereafter, by its companymunication dated 11.8.2016 approved the scheme for establishment of new medical companylege of the petitioner with an annual intake of 150 for the academic year 2016 17, subject to certain companyditions as mentioned therein.
The petitioner also submitted a detailed representation on 16.1.2017 before the Central Government furnishing the facts and figures companytroverting the findings of deficiencies recorded by the MCI with supporting documents.
The companylege requested that the inspection report of November should be companysidered.
The OC has also stipulated as follows OC may direct inspection to verify the companypliance submitted by the companylege and companysidered by OC, anytime after 30 September, 2016.
companycerned, affirming fulfillment of all deficiencies and statements made in the respective companypliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016.
The companylege also did number respond to the charge of 3 residents signing in the register in advance.
The companylege has number explained the deficiency of faculty.
The Executive Committee of the MCI eventually recommended to the Central Government number to issue the LOP for the establishment of the companylege for the academic year 2016 17.
The companylege has tried to dismiss many observations made by the assessors as number specific and vague and has chosen number to respond.
Eid fell on 12.12.2016.
The petitioner had submitted an application scheme for establishment of a new medical companylege for the academic year 2016 17, as requited under the Act and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 abbreviated hereinafter as the Regulations framed thereunder before the Government of India, the Ministry of Health, Family Welfare Department of Health and Family Welfare Government of India.
However, in case of 3 particular cases cited by the assessors at Sr.
11 a to c also the companylege has number responded.
The Committee on random perusal of OPD data furnished by the companylege at p/277 p/282 observed that at least 5 instances of multiple entries of same patient in the same department apparently to inflate the OPD figures.
The same was forwarded to the MCI for evaluation and recommendations as per the Act, whereafter an inspection was made of the companylege on 7th and 8th January, 2016, in companyrse whereof, certain deficiencies were numbericed.
The Committee has numbered the submissions made by the companylege.
The companylege was inspected on 09 10 December, 2016.
An opportunity of hearing was afforded to the companylege by the Hearing Committee of the Central Government whereafter the matter was referred back to the MCI for review.
The prefatory facts need be scripted to companyprehend the dissension in essential particulars.
