The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by doctors’ associations and individual medical practitioners challenging the professional status granted to physiotherapists and occupational therapists under a central law. The court refused to interfere with the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021, and upheld the right of these professionals to function independently within their domain.
The judgment was delivered by Justice V.G. Arun after hearing detailed arguments spread over several weeks.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by the Indian Medical Association (Kerala branch), the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and several senior doctors. They argued that provisions of the NCAHP Act and the competency-based curriculum framed under it gave excessive powers to physiotherapists and occupational therapists.
Read also:- Religious Faith Cannot Block Public Roads: Madras High Court Orders Removal of Chennai Roadside Shrine
According to the petitioners, these professionals were meant only to support qualified medical doctors and could not act as first-contact healthcare providers. A major objection was also raised against allowing physiotherapists and occupational therapists to use the prefix “Dr”, which, the doctors claimed, would mislead patients into believing they were allopathic physicians.
What the Doctors Argued
Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that only those registered under the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019, were legally entitled to practice modern medicine. Allowing allied health professionals to assess patients directly, plan treatment, or use the “Dr” prefix, they said, amounted to unauthorized medical practice.
“The public associates the title ‘Doctor’ with modern medicine,” the petitioners contended, warning that this could cause confusion and serious risk to patients.
Read also:- Delhi Court Acquits Medha Patkar in 2006 TV Defamation Case Filed by V.K. Saxena
Stand of Physiotherapists and Authorities
Counsel appearing for physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and the Union government countered that the NCAHP Act was a valid parliamentary law enacted after extensive consultation. They argued that allied health professionals form an independent category, trained through structured degree programs running into thousands of hours.
They also pointed out that the Act clearly distinguishes between medical professionals and healthcare professionals, and that physiotherapists do not have the authority to prescribe medicines or practice allopathic treatment.
Court’s Observations
Justice Arun declined to “read down” the provisions of the NCAHP Act, noting that courts should not interfere with legislative policy unless there is a clear constitutional violation.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in Chandigarh Beef Recovery Case
The court observed, “Healthcare professionals under the NCAHP Act are entitled to provide preventive, curative, rehabilitative and therapeutic services, though they cannot prescribe medicines or provide allopathic treatment.”
On the use of the “Dr” prefix, the judge rejected the claim of exclusivity by medical practitioners. The court traced the historical origin of the word “doctor” and noted that the title was not statutorily conferred on MBBS doctors under the NMC Act.
“The contention that the title ‘Doctor’ exclusively belongs to medical professionals is a misconception,” the court said.
Read also:- Animal Welfare Misused: Delhi Court Slams NGO, Confirms Return of Seized Dogs
Final Decision
Finding no legal conflict between the NMC Act and the NCAHP Act, and noting the overriding effect given to the allied health law, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
The court concluded that it would be inappropriate to curtail the professional scope of physiotherapists and occupational therapists or to prohibit them from using the “Dr” prefix in the absence of any statutory.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association (Kerala) & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
