The ethics and medical registration board (EMRB) of the National Medical Commission (NMC) has referred the contentious issue of whether patients can appeal against state medical council decisions to the health ministry, after rejecting hundreds of such complaints for over five years. On May 20, the EMRB issued an office memorandum stating that the NMC Act was enacted by the central government and any interpretation relating to its provisions should be undertaken by the ministry.
Background of the Dispute
Dr. Babu KV, an RTI activist and ophthalmologist from Kerala, has been persistently writing to the health ministry, arguing that section 8.8 of the Medical Council ethics code 2002, still in force, allows patients and the public to appeal to the NMC against decisions of state medical councils. He contends that the EMRB has been illegally rejecting patients' appeals and has sought action against 27 NMC members who were party to the decision under section 1.9 of the ethics code, which mandates physicians to observe the laws of the country.
Conflicting Interpretations
The EMRB, however, claimed that while the 2002 ethics code remains in force, section 30(3) of the NMC Act, 2019, takes precedence. This section states that a medical practitioner or professional aggrieved by a state medical council's action may appeal to the EMRB. In October 2021, the NMC interpreted this section to mean that only medical practitioners can file appeals, a decision approved unanimously. Dr. Babu points out that the word 'only' was inserted by the NMC and does not appear in the original section, nor does the Act bar patients from filing appeals.
Recent Developments
Dr. Babu's January 2026 email to the health ministry, demanding action against NMC members, was forwarded by the ministry's medical education policy division to the NMC's policy and coordination division, as stated in the EMRB's May 20 office memorandum obtained through RTI. Notably, the NMC's website shows that the five-member EMRB is currently vacant except for one part-time member, raising questions about who made the decision to shift the matter to the health ministry.
