Case Law Details
Medicos Legal Action Group Trust Vs Punjab Medical Council (Competition Commission of India)
It is clear that the role of PMC is dual in nature. While, on the one hand, it performs statutory functions relating to the regulation of the medical profession, such as registration of medical practitioners and maintaining and updating the register for this purpose, on the other hand, it grants accreditation to medical institutions, professional bodies and associations/organizations for conducting continuous medical education conferences on payment of a fee. Accordingly, for discharging its functions with respect to the registration of medical practitioners, it may specify certain qualifications, disqualifications, prescriptions of certain standards, etc., for meeting the objectives of the discipline, growth, quality of service, etc., which essentially appears to be regulatory in nature. However, the other part, relating to the accreditation of various bodies for conducting medical education conferences/workshops on payment of fee, is more in the nature of an economic activity. The Commission also notes that, as per sub-clause (c) of Clause II of the MoU entered between the OPs, the OPs have agreed that materials will be provided at a pre-determined fee to be charged by PMC to RMPs as outlined in Annexure B. Accordingly, the said activities relating to conferences/workshops against a pre-determined fee qualify OP-1 to be an ‘enterprise’ in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act.
As regards the averment of the Informant that the CME guidelines deprive RMPs in the State of Punjab of CME credit hours in case they attend e-CME programmes conducted on other platforms, the Commission notes that the said allegation has been denied by a statutory body (OP-1) stating in clear terms that the doctors attending CMEs on platforms other than Omnicuris were not deprived of CME credit hours.
26. In relation to the allegation as well as submission of the Informant that its concern is not that OP-2 has been chosen to conduct CMEs, but that it is not allowing other well-accredited online CME platforms from conducting CMEs, the Commission notes the submission of OP-1 that it is ready to enter into an MoU with accredited CME providers/platforms, subject to ascertainment as regards the candidate being sufficiently qualified and competent to conduct such CME programmes. Further, in this regard, the Informant has not placed on record any material/evidence which suggests that OP-1 has denied accreditation to an online CME platforms which is qualified and competent to conduct such CME programmes, as per the requirements of OP-1. In the opinion of the Commission, OP-1 is well within its jurisdiction to prescribe certain standards, guidelines, etc., for the purpose of maintaining quality in medical education and practice.
In view of the above and taking the submissions and assertions made by OP-1 and Informant into consideration, as noted in the preceding paras, the Commission is of the view that it is unnecessary to dwell any further on the issues projected in the Information by examining the matter on merits.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
