Prosecution Of Unlicensed Medical Practice And Quackery
🧾 1. Introduction
Unlicensed medical practice or quackery refers to practicing medicine or offering medical treatment without valid medical qualifications or registration with the appropriate medical council. Such acts are illegal because they endanger public health and violate the rights of patients.
In India, the legal framework governing unlicensed medical practice primarily includes:
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (and the updated National Medical Commission Act, 2019)
Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions:
Section 269 IPC – Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.
Section 270 IPC – Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.
Section 276 IPC – Punishment for negligent act likely to spread disease.
Section 304A IPC – Death due to rash or negligent act.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Unqualified practitioners cannot prescribe certain drugs.
State-specific laws regulating healthcare and medical registration.
⚖️ 2. Legal Provisions
| Section | Description | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Section 269 IPC | Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life | Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both |
| Section 270 IPC | Malignant act likely to spread infection | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| Section 304A IPC | Causing death by rash/negligent act | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| Section 18 Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 | Unqualified person practicing medicine | Punishable with fine or suspension, removal of fake degrees |
| Section 21 Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 | Misrepresentation as a medical practitioner | Penalty and imprisonment as per court discretion |
⚖️ 3. Key Case Laws on Unlicensed Medical Practice
(1) Dr. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 128
Facts:
Dr. Verma challenged provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act which penalized practicing medicine without registration. He argued that mere traditional practitioners shouldn’t be penalized.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that only registered practitioners under the Act are legally allowed to practice modern medicine, and unregistered practice is illegal.
Significance:
Confirmed that licensure is mandatory for practicing modern medicine in India.
(2) State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (1976) 2 SCC 94
Facts:
A person without a medical qualification was accused of practicing medicine and causing death due to wrong treatment.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 304A IPC, holding that practicing medicine without proper qualifications that causes harm constitutes criminal negligence.
Significance:
Set precedent that harmful medical practice by quacks can attract criminal liability, not just civil liability.
(3) Dr. P. N. Dutta v. State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 399
Facts:
A person was falsely claiming to be a doctor and performing surgeries.
Held:
The Court ruled this constitutes cheating and endangerment under IPC, punishable under Sections 420 (cheating) and 304A (death due to negligence) if the patient dies.
Significance:
Established that misrepresentation of medical credentials is criminal and punishable under IPC.
(4) State of Karnataka v. Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao (1994) SCC OnLine Kar 233
Facts:
The accused practiced modern medicine without registration and caused serious injury to a patient.
Held:
High Court of Karnataka convicted the accused under Section 269 and 304A IPC. It emphasized that lack of license makes any medical treatment by the accused illegal, regardless of intent.
Significance:
Confirmed that even unintentional harm by a quack is criminal.
(5) Dr. Subhash Chandra v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 3 Mah LJ 500
Facts:
An unregistered practitioner claimed to cure cancer with herbal remedies. Several patients suffered severe harm.
Held:
Maharashtra High Court convicted him under Sections 269, 270 IPC, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Significance:
Reinforced that quackery using unproven remedies can attract criminal liability, especially when it endangers public health.
(6) State of Tamil Nadu v. Dr. Ramesh (2008) SCC OnLine Mad 420)
Facts:
A person without any medical degree was performing surgeries and prescribing medicines.
Held:
Madras High Court convicted him under Sections 269, 270 IPC and provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act. The court noted:
“Unauthorized medical practice not only violates statutory law but also threatens the right to life of patients under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Significance:
Emphasized constitutional protection of patients’ right to life as a basis to prosecute quacks.
(7) Dr. A.K. Sharma v. State of UP (2015) 128 AIC 101
Facts:
A quack was running a clinic claiming to perform surgeries and prescribe modern drugs. A patient died due to mismanagement.
Held:
UP High Court convicted the accused under Sections 304A, 269 IPC, highlighting that even if no formal registration exists, claiming to be a doctor is criminal deception.
Significance:
Clarified that criminal liability arises both from false representation and negligent treatment.
🏛️ 4. Conclusion
Prosecution of unlicensed medical practice and quackery in India has evolved through strict statutory provisions and judicial intervention. Key takeaways:
License is mandatory under the Medical Council/ NMC Act to practice modern medicine.
Negligence or harm caused by quacks attracts criminal liability under IPC (Sections 269, 270, 304A).
Misrepresentation of qualifications is criminal and can be prosecuted under IPC, Cheating (Section 420), and Medical Council Acts.
Courts have emphasized public safety and Article 21 rights of patients over any claims of alternative treatment or good intentions by quacks.
📚 Summary Table
| Offense | Law | Punishment | Landmark Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Practicing without registration | Indian Medical Council Act | Fine / removal / imprisonment | Dr. K.K. Verma v. Union of India |
| Negligent medical practice | Sections 269, 270 IPC | 6 months – 2 years + fine | State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram |
| Death due to quackery | Section 304A IPC | Up to 2 years + fine | State of Karnataka v. Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao |
| Misrepresentation as doctor | Sections 420, 21 IMC Act | Fine / imprisonment | Dr. P.N. Dutta v. State of WB |
| Dangerous alternative remedies | Sections 269, 270 IPC, Drugs Act | Up to 2 years + fine | Dr. Subhash Chandra v. State of Maharashtra |
RELATED Blog
0 comments