'Doctor' Title Doesn't Belong Exclusively To Medical Professionals: Kerala High Court Permits Physiotherapists To Use 'Dr.' Prefix

The Kerala High Court has held that the title 'doctor' does not belong exclusively to medical professionals and that physiotherapists and occupational therapists can use the 'Dr.' prefix.

Justice V.G. Arun pronounced the judgment dismissing the pleas preferred by Indian Medical Association, Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) and its Secretary.

The Court had earlier passed an interim order against the usage of "Dr." prefix by physiotherapists and occupational therapists who do not possess recognised medical qualification.

While dismissing the petitions, the Court held that the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act does not contain any provision that confers the title 'doctor' to medical professionals. Noting also that the term 'doctor' is meant for persons who have achieved the highest level of learning, the Court observed:

"The challenge against the use of prefix 'Dr' by Physiotherapists will not also hold good since the NMC or the allied statutes does not provide for the use of the prefix 'Dr' by qualified medical professionals...Therefore the contention that the title 'Doctor' exclusively belongs to medical professionals is a misconception since even now, like in the olden times, persons with higher educational qualifications like PhD are entitled to use the title 'Doctor'."

It also rejected the contention of the petitioners that the word 'title' used in Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act statutorily entitles them to use 'Dr' prefix to their names to the exclusion of others.

"the NMC Act does not contain any provision for conferring the title Doctor on qualified medical professionals. The expression title used in Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act cannot therefore be understood as statutorily entitling the qualified medical professionals to prefix 'Dr' to their names. In the absence of such provision, the petitioners cannot claim exclusive right to use the prefix 'Dr'," the Court observed.

The petitioners in this case were qualified medical professionals and they were aggrieved by the status and powers conferred to Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Profession Act, 2021 (NCAHP Act) as well as the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy.

They had sought reading down of certain provisions of the NCAHP Act and the Curriculum to be contrary to the NMC Act. Further, it was contended that physiotherapists and occupational therapists only extend supporting service while specialist medical professionals alone can give first hand healthcare.

They were also aggrieved that the Curriculum permits physiotherapists and occupational therapists to use 'Dr. prefix along with "PT" and "OT" as suffixes, equating them with modern medical practitioners.

Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to contend that the use of 'Dr.' prefix by physiotherapists would mislead the general public into assuming them to be qualified allopathic doctors, leading to disastrous consequences.

On behalf of the respondents, a challenge to the maintainability of the petitions, initiated at the instance of a few doctors, was made out. It was contended that the National Medical Commission had not made any objection to the Curriculum or use the use of 'Dr.' prefix.

The physiotherapists argued that it was an independent and district branch of health science, falling with Allied Health and Rehabilitation Services. Moreover, the Curriculum also recognises them as first contact health providers within their domain. Further, it was contended the Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to read down provisions of law contrary to legislative intent and policy.

On behalf of the occupational therapists, arguments were raised regarding the overriding effect of the NCAHP Act, which would prevail over the NMC Act as the former is a subsequent enactment.

The Court, at the inception, looked into the circumstances that led to the enactment of the NCAHP Act:

"Till recently, the health force in the Indian scenario had focused mainly on a few cadres such as qualified modern medicine practitioners, nurses and front-line workers, while the professionals belonging to the healthcare sector were generally termed as para-medical professionals. The advancement in the health sector and the changing preferences of consumers and service providers warranted a fresh vision of healthcare delivery with a patient-centric approach and focus on moving to a multi-disciplinary team based care."

It also looked into the definitions of 'allied and health professional' and 'healthcare professional' under the Act and remarked that a healthcare professional is entitled to provide preventive, curative, rehabilitative, therapeutic and promotional health services.

The Court then observed that in the absence of any specific challenge to the provisions, it cannot normally read them down. It found no compelling reason to do the same either and felt it would be inappropriate for it to intervene with the policy of the government, especially at the instance of only a few medical professionals.

The Bench also took note of the overriding effect of the NCAHP Act, the fact that the National Medical Commission was also heard before the Parliamentary Committee made its recommendation. 

Taking all these into consideration, the Court dismissed the petitions.

Case No: W.P.(C) No.41064 of 2025 and connected cases

Case Title: Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

Counsel for the petitioners: Mayankutty Mather (Sr.), S. Parvathi, T.K. Sreekala, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, V.V. Asokan, (Sr.), K.G. Anil, V. Sreejith, Nisha George, Sabu George, V. Ramkumar Nambiar, Vineeth Komalachandran, G.P. Shinod, Navaneeth D. Pai, Silpa Sreekumar, P.B. Subramanyan, Manu Vyasan Peter, Ajit G. Anjarlekar, Atul Mathews, Gayathri S.B.

Counsel for the respondents: S.Sreekumar (Sr.), George Poonthottam (Sr.), P.B. Krishnan (Sr.), V. Ramkumar Nambiar, Vineeth Komalachandran, O.M. Shalina - DSGI , K.S. Premjith Kumar - Standing Counsel - National Medical Commission, Mahadev M.J. - Central Government Counsel 

Click to Read/Download Judgment