Medical Admission & Disabled

 

 

 

 JUSTICE Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan, at the Supreme Court, have accepted the report of Dr. Satendra Singh and confirmed the admission granted to the appellant- Anmol, through the Court’s order on December 12, 2024, in the Govt. Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan. On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court has stated that the report of Dr. Singh satisfies the parameters of law laid down by the Court in its two decisions delivered on October 15, 2024.

 

These decisions are Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Others –(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2860 and Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services & Others- (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3130. The Report makes a detailed individual analysis of the case and makes a functional assessment; it states elaborate reasons and suggests measures for providing clinical accommodation and assistive technology. Above all, the conclusion of Dr Satendra Singh that incompetence to pursue the MBBS course cannot be presumed at the threshold stage, on the facts of the present case appeals to the Court for the reasons set out hereinabove. Through this appeal, correctness of the order passed by a Punjab and Haryana High Court division bench on September 23, 2024, rejecting the writ petition was questioned. The HC had rejected the claim of the appellant, a ‘person with disabilities’ and upheld the denial of admission to him, to the MBBS course. The SC, by its order on December 12, 2024, while granting leave, after considering the report of the Medical Board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), including the separate opinion of Dr Satendra Singh, a member of the Board, and considering the legal position directed that the appellant should be admitted in the Govt. Medical College at Sirohi in Rajasthan against a seat reserved for persons with disabilities (PwD) (OBC).

 

The reasons for that direction has been given through this judgement. The appellant had a distinguished academic record in school and had passed his X and XII examinations with flying colours. It is clear from the medical opinion of the AIIMS, including the opinion of Dr Satendra Singh, that the appellant has Locomotor disability 50% with Club foot right lower limb with Phocomalia, left middle ring finger through middle phalanx with right middle index finger through middle phalanx. Further, he has speech and language disability of 20%. The final disability computed was 58%. The appellant aspired to be a medical professional. He appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 Examination conducted by the National Testing Agency on May 5, 2024. The results were declared and the appellant obtained rank 2462 in the Persons with Disability (PwD) category. The appellant had approached the Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh- the designated Disability Certification Centre to get his disability assessed. Without assigning any reason whatsoever and without examining the functional disability and merely carried away by the quantified disability, the Disability Assessment Board by its Certificate of September 2, 2024, rendered him ineligible to pursue medical course.

 

Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition before the High Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the disability certificate and sought a fresh assessment. By the impugned order, the HC dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the experts in the field of disability. On November 28, 2024, the report as directed by the Supreme Court was furnished. The Committee was appointed by the AIIMS on the direction of the Supreme Court to examine as to whether the disability suffered by the petitioner (appellant) would come in the way of his pursuing medical studies. The report is in two parts. Of the total six members, five members, except Dr Satendra Singh submitted one part of the report. About the appellant these 5 members have stated that the appellant is not suitable to pursue MBBS course of five and a half years.

 

The current NMC Guidelines perhaps need revision, and with respect to current guidelines, this Medical Board is not able to declare the candidate FIT to join MBBS course. Dr. Satendra Singh gave a separate detailed assessment. His conclusion is that the appellant can successfully navigate the MBBS course with clinical accommodations and assistive technologies. In the Supreme Court’s considered view, the correct approach is the one that Dr Satendra Singh has adopted of not barring a candidate at the threshold but to grant to the candidate choice after completing the MBBS course, to decide whether he wishes to specialise in a non-surgical or medical branch or continue as a General Duty Medical Officer. As has been rightly set out by Dr Satendra Singh, it will be unfair to presume incompetence at the threshold without first providing an opportunity to the candidate and ensuring the availability of accommodations and assistive products. Dealing with functional assessment, the appellant was put through certain procedures to test his dexterity and ability to perform psychomotor skills in simulated environment. Answering 4 questions posed to himself in negative, Dr Satendra Singh has stated that the proposed accommodation would not result in failure to meet the NMC CBME’s inherent requirements. The accommodation would not legitimately jeopardise patient safety.

 

The proposed accommodation would not result in the improper waiver of a core requirement of the CBME. The proposed accommodation would not pose an undue hardship on medical college (Budgets wise). The report has an interesting reference about how in an age when robotic surgeries are relied upon, the NMC norms still insist on the “both hands intact with intact sensations” norm. Dr. Singh quotes the father of neurosurgery Harvey Cushing, who as early as in 1911, emphasised the motor skills are often “the least part of the work.”

 

The Supreme Court has directed the matter to be posted on March 3, 2025 to consider whether the National Medical Commission has formulated the revised guidelines in accordance with the judgements of this Court, as directed in Omkar Ramchandra and Om Rathod cases and also directed that the NMC shall file an affidavit explaining the current status before the said hearing date. The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal. The Court has set aside the P & H HC division bench’s decision of September 3, 2024 in the WP 24293/2024 and the admission granted to the appellant by virtue of its order of December 12, 2024 in the Govt. Medical College, Sirohi in Rajasthan.