The government of India in general and the state health ministries in particular should deliberate on making strict policies to permanently stop practices by quacks in any field of medical system. It is unfortunate that quackery is widely prevalent in the country although there are adequate legal provisions against it, commented Dr M C Gupta, medico-legal consultant in New Delhi.
“A large number of deaths are caused by wrong treatment by quacks. Wrong treatment results in complications that may be too late or too serious to be treated properly when brought to a properly qualified doctor. Strict vigilance and policies for treatments by qualified and recognized medical practitioners are the only solution to this malady”, he added.
In an email chat with Pharmabiz from California, where Dr Gupta visited to deliver a lecture on ‘Legal problems faced by medical professionals’, said any untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment is a quack. He said there are several verdicts from the Supreme Court and various High Courts against practices by quacks.
Quoting Poonam Verma v/s Ashwini Patel case, he said the Supreme Court has defined a quack as ‘a person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a charlatan’
Based on this definition, he explained, it is possible to identify two types of quacks. First one is persons having no recognized medical qualification in a recognized system of medicine but practicing medicine. These are pure quacks. This category also includes some physiotherapists, clinical psychologists etc. who use the prefix “Doctor” before their name and openly prescribe medicines. The DMLT (Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology) holders who run pathlabs also come under this category.
The type two quacks are persons having a recognized medical qualification in a particular recognized system of medicine but practicing in a system of medicine in which they are not qualified. Very often these are Ayush practitioners who openly practice allopathy/modern medicine. Ayush doctors who run path labs also come under this category.
In the Sarjoo Prasad and others v/s the state of Bihar and others, dated 21, February, 2003, the court decreed that physiotherapists have no right to prescribe medicines.
On a complaint to the National Consumer Commission by Prof P N Thakur against Hans Charitable Hospital, the Commission remarked, “when a patient is admitted in a hospital, it is done with the belief that the treatment given in the hospital is being given by qualified doctors under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is not within the knowledge of the relatives of the patient that the patient is being treated by a Unani specialist. We hold that it is clear deficiency in service and negligence by the hospital for leaving the patient in the hands of Unani doctor.”. Dr MCG said, in this case the Unani doctor acted as quack.