PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has declared running of medical and dental clinics by medical technicians as illegal, observing that they lack the prescribed qualification provided under the law for that purpose.

A bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim recently dismissed two writ petitions filed by around 65 health technicians, who had challenged crackdown launched by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Care Commission (HCC) on the clinics run by technicians in Swat and Malakand districts.

In its detailed judgment, the bench ruled that no doubt, under Article 18 of Constitution every citizen had freedom to carry on any trade or business but the same was subject to certain qualifications, which might be prescribed by the law.

“The petitioners herein are not possessing the prescribed qualification for running private dental or medical clinics under the existing law i.e. Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 and learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to pinpoint any law under which the petitioners could run private clinics without the prescribed qualification. This court feels no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are not legally authorised to run private clinics,” the bench ruled.

Bench observes they lack proscribed qualification for the purpose

The bench had delivered the judgment on May 9 in Swat Circuit Bench (Darul Qaza) after hearing arguments of both the sides.

The petitioners had requested the court to declare the order of HCC to the effect of locking and sealing of their clinics in Swat and Malakand districts.

They had prayed that HCC, previously known as Health Regulatory Authority (HRA), might be directed to process the applications already pending with it for registration/licence/permit and other petitioners might also be allowed to submit applications.

The judgment authored by Justice Musarrat Hilali explains that a dental technologist is a skilled person, who upon prescription from a qualified dentist makes and repairs various appliances such as dentures, bridges, crowns and dental braces while a paramedic is a person trained to provide emergency medical service in a manner more akin to a hospital nurse under the direct supervision of qualified doctors.

“Under section 2(h) of Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 and fifth schedule of the said ordinance, which has duly been extended to Provincially administered Tribal Areas (Pata), a dental practitioner must possess a bachelor degree in dental surgery,” the bench ruled, observing that except the said provisions of law, they could not find any provision which enabled a person other than those possessing the prescribed qualification to run a private clinic.

Among the petitioners, 23 were paramedics (dental technologists) having two years professional diploma in medical technology from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Faculty Peshawar; 12 of the petitioners were paramedics with one year diploma in dental surgery; and, other petitioners were also having one year training diploma and certificates in different fields of dentistry from different institutions in the country.

The petitioners claimed that earlier their clinics were sealed by the government against which they filed appeals with HRA.

They stated that HRA in its meeting on January 8, 2014, held the petitioners entitled and qualified to be issued licences and permits.

In 2015, HRA was replaced by HCC through Health Care Commission Act, 2015 and the petitioners then approached the commission, which did not give a favourable reply and once again the clinics and health care centres run by the petitioners were sealed.

Referring to the petitioners’ argument that HRA had held them entitled for permits and licences, the court ruled that the argument was misconceived as HRA was a body, which was responsible for registration of clinics and laboratories and to issue fee structure to doctors and laboratories.

“Thus the recommendations of the committee constituted by HRA for issuing licences and permits to petitioners to run private clinics have no legal backing, the same are repelled,” ruled the court.

Published in Dawn, May 23rd, 2017