Supreme Court Annual Digest 2022- Medical Law And Medical Education

Admission and Fee Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private UnAided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (Andhra Pradesh); Rule 4 - The education is not the business to earn profit. The tuition fee shall always be affordable. Determination of fee/review of fee shall be within the parameters of the fixation rules and shall have direct nexus on the factors mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules, 2006, namely, (a) the location of the professional institution; (b) the nature of the professional course; (c) the cost of available infrastructure; (d) the expenditure on administration and maintenance; (e) a reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the professional Institution; (f) the revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the reserved category and other Economically Weaker Sections of the society. All the aforesaid factors are required to be considered by the AFRC while determining/reviewing the tuition fees. (Para 5) Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929 : AIR 2022 SC 5686 Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Andhra Pradesh) - Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private UnAided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (Andhra Pradesh); Rule 4 - Government order issued by State of Andhra Pradesh that enhanced the tuition fee of Private Medical Colleges by seven times, to Rs. 24 lakhs per annum - State Governnment could not have enhanced the fee during the review pending with the AFRC. To enhance the fee unilaterally would be contrary to the objects and purpose of the 1983 Act as well as the 2006 Rules, 2006 and the decision in P.A. Inamdar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (2005) 6 SCC 537. (Para 3.1, 5) Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929 : AIR 2022 SC 5686 Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - In cases where the victim of rape is alive and is in a position to testify in court, it may be possible for the prosecution to take a chance by not medically examining the accused. But in cases where the victim is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence, medical evidence assumes great importance. The failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. (Para 80) Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804 : AIR 2022 SC 4688 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder - Even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, is enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. (Para 28) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480 : AIR 2022 SC 2396 : (2022) 8 SCC 668 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A, 164A - While Section 53A enables the medical examination of the person accused of rape, Section 164A enables medical examination of the victim of rape. Both these provisions are somewhat similar and can be said approximately to be a mirror image of each other. But there are three distinguishing features - discussed. (Para 79) Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804 : AIR 2022 SC 4688 Criminal Trial - Medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged - It is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. (Para 18) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402 : AIR 2022 SC 2817 Fake Pharmacists Fake Pharmacists - PIL before Patna HC restored - The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the PIL ventilating the very serious grievances touching the health and life of the citizen is disapproved - High Court to call for detailed report/counter from the State of Bihar and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on (i) how many Governments' hospitals/hospitals/medical stores/private hospitals are being run either by fake pharmacist or without registered pharmacist; (ii) whether any action is taken by the State Government on the fact-finding committee report submitted by the Bihar State...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2022- Medical Law And Medical Education

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags