Assn moves court against ‘dentists not doctors’ remark
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 10
The Dental Surgeons Association of India, with 22,000 members, has taken exception to the UT Administration’s assertion in a court case that “dentists do not come within the definition of doctors” and has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to become an intervener in the matter.
Going into the background of the matter, the association asserted that an FIR was apparently registered against a practising dentist. The petitioner-dentist contended that pursuant to the FIR dated March 19, 2018, registered at the Sector 19 police station, for cheating and other offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, he applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed. As such, the matter was pending before the High Court.
One of his contentions was that he was entitled to the protection granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew. Elaborating, he submitted it was held that a complaint may not be maintainable unless there was a credible opinion given preferably by a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice, who could normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion.
The association, in its application, also drew the court’s attention to a short reply filed by Deputy Superintendent of the Chandigarh Police Satish Kumar on UT’s behalf in this regard. The association added that it was stated in the reply dated May 3, 2018, that dentists did not come within the definition of doctors and were not registered with the Medical Council of India.
The counsel added that the assertion would directly affect the interests of members of the applicant association and the dentist fraternity.
It added that a dentist was performing medical functions, undertaking surgeries, imparting treatment and prescribing drugs to patients and the place of establishment was called a “clinic or hospital”.
Taking up the plea, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal fixed the case for August first week after the applicant prayed for time to satisfy the court “how the application would be maintainable.”
The dentist was seeking bail in the case registered on a complaint of a US-based woman. She had come to India for a dental implant in August, 2017. The counsel had added that the petitioner had been falsely implicated at the behest of the complainant’s husband, who was global media director of a company. The complainant was harassing the petitioner and maligning him.
Taking up the plea, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal fixed the case for August first week after the applicant prayed for time to satisfy the court “how the application would be maintainable.” The dentist was seeking bail in the case registered on a US woman’s complaint. She had visited India for a dental implant in August 2017. The counsel added that the petitioner was implicated at the behest of the woman’s husband, global media director of a firm.
