0
0
New Delhi, January 22, 2026: The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has instructed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to examine and act on appeals filed by patients and non-registered medical practitioners (non-RMPs) against decisions of State Medical Councils (SMCs). This directive follows a representation by health activist Dr. KV Babu, highlighting inconsistencies in NMC’s handling of such appeals under the NMC Act, 2019, and legacy MCI Ethics Regulations. The move addresses years of rejections, potentially restoring public access to higher-level grievance redressal in medical misconduct cases.
Background on the Appeals Controversy
The National Medical Commission replaced the Medical Council of India (MCI) in 2020 under the NMC Act, 2019, aiming to regulate medical education and professional conduct more effectively. Section 30(3) of the Act allows a “medical practitioner or professional aggrieved by any action taken by a State Medical Council” to appeal to the NMC’s Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB). However, it does not explicitly bar non-RMPs, such as patients or families, from appealing.
Under the MCI Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulations, 2002—still operative per Section 61(2) of the NMC Act—Regulation 8.8 grants “any person aggrieved by the decision of the State Medical Council on any complaint against a delinquent physician” the right to appeal to the MCI within 60 days. Dr. Babu argues that NMC’s 2021 decision to limit appeals to doctors only misinterprets the law, as the ethics code remains unchanged.
NMC has rejected hundreds of non-RMP appeals citing non-maintainability. RTI data reveals 65 rejections from March to September 2022 alone, 162 by mid-2025, and ongoing dismissals despite a September 2024 NMC meeting resolution to entertain all EMRB appeals. A February 2025 rejection of a Punjab patient’s appeal exemplifies the confusion.
Key Developments and Ministry’s Intervention
Dr. KV Babu, a Kerala-based ophthalmologist and RTI activist known for challenging unethical practices—like IMA’s product endorsements and Patanjali’s misleading claims—submitted his representation recently. He urged the Ministry to direct EMRB to process non-RMP appeals and investigate 27 NMC members from the 2021 meeting for violating Regulation 1.9, which mandates physicians to uphold laws.
The Ministry forwarded the representation to NMC Secretary, stating: “As the issues raised fall within the statutory domain of the National Medical Commission, the representation is hereby forwarded… for examination and appropriate action… and to apprise this Ministry of the outcome.” This echoes stalled 2023 government proposals to amend the NMC Act for explicit patient appeal rights.
NMC’s 16th meeting minutes (September 23, 2024) noted “all appeals by the EMRB would be entertained,” yet rejections persisted, prompting Babu’s escalation. No official NMC response to the latest directive is public as of January 2026.
Expert Perspectives
Dr. Babu welcomed the Ministry’s step: “Those 27 NMC members who happened to be doctors should be made accountable for the illegal decision. It’s for the Ministry of Health to act. This is a step in the right direction.”
Dr. Nandimath, in a 2022 analysis, critiqued the NMC Act’s parity issues: “No such right of appeal is available to a patient… Sections 30(3) and 30(4) detail disciplinary actions… restricting the right to medical professionals alone.” A legal expert from PRS India noted that legacy regulations like 8.8 continue until replaced, supporting broader appeal rights.
Indian Journal of Medical Ethics contributors argue NMC’s approach undermines patient protections, urging amendments for balance without overburdening regulators. Former Kerala Health Minister K.K. Shailaja praised Babu’s persistence: “Dr. Babu’s approach is systematic… showcasing the profound influence that one person can have in fostering a more ethical and transparent society.”
Public Health Implications
This dispute affects patient safety and trust in India’s medical regulatory system, serving over 1.4 billion people with around 13 lakh registered doctors. SMC decisions on negligence complaints—often involving misdiagnosis, surgical errors, or unethical practices—impact thousands annually. Denying appeals leaves patients without recourse, potentially shielding errant practitioners and discouraging complaints.
Restoring non-RMP appeals could enhance accountability, aligning with “One Health” initiatives emphasizing public protection. For health-conscious consumers, it means stronger safeguards in seeking redress for grievances, like the Amritsar case. Healthcare professionals benefit from clearer guidelines, reducing procedural ambiguity.
Broader implications include pressure on NMC to update SOPs; a recent NMC document outlines RMP appeal processes but omits non-RMPs. Success here could model reforms in other professions.
Limitations and Counterarguments
NMC defends restrictions to prevent frivolous appeals overwhelming EMRB, which handled thousands of cases yearly. A draft amendment for patient appeals has lingered since 2022, stalled by workload concerns.
Critics like Babu counter that Section 30(3) doesn’t prohibit patients, and pre-NMC MCI allowed them. Without legal opinion for 2021’s “only doctors” stance, decisions risk judicial challenge. Diverse views exist: some doctors’ associations fear bias in patient-led appeals, while patient rights groups demand inclusion.
The Ministry’s non-binding directive leaves outcomes uncertain; NMC must act “as deemed fit,” possibly reiterating rejections.
References
-
Medical Dialogues. “Health Ministry asks NMC to act on appeals against state medical council decisions.” January 20, 2026. https://medicaldialogues.in/news/health/health-ministry-asks-nmc-to-act-on-appeals-against-state-medical-council-decisions-163099[medicaldialogues]
- Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making any health-related decisions or changes to your treatment plan. The information presented here is based on current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as new evidence emerges.
