Doctors – Field of Practice

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Mehboob Alam v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 2 JIC 774 considered whether the persons holding degrees in Indian Medicines such as Ashtang, Ayurved, Siddha, Unani Tibb are authorized to practice Allopathic system of medicines and after analysis of provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 took the view that the medicine means modern scientific medicine for all its branches and includes surgery and same is entirely different from the Indian Medicine and only a person who possesses the qualification enumerated in the first schedule of this order which have been recognized and entitled to be enrolled on any State Register, can only practice. A person holding qualification recognized under Indian Medicine Central Council 1970 Act, does not authorize him to practice Allopathy system of medicine.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court once again on issue being raised as to whether incumbents who has got to his credit degree in Indian Medicine can he be permitted to practice in modern medicine, proceeded to consider the matter at length in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (II) v. A.P. Verma, 2004 (2) ESC (All) 960 and repelled the submission, so advanced.
Division Bench of the Court once again reiterated the same principal in the case of Ravinder Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2004 (2) ESC 976, that a person with Ayurvedic and Unani qualification, if is practicing Allopathic, same is illegal.
The field of practice thus stands demarcated, i.e. the doctors enrolled in their branch of medicine should not be allowed to practice in any other branch of medicine of which he has not acquired knowledge or has little knowledge. Under the scheme of things provided for, there is mutual exclusion, i.e. one is not allowed to practice in any other branch of medicine of which he has not acquired knowledge. Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P., 2014 (2) AWC 2018.

Cosmetic Product and Medicament – Distinction Between

In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ciens Laboratories, Mumbai, (2013) 14 SCC 133 it was held as under:
“Firstly when a product contains pharmaceutical ingredients that have therapeutic or prophylactic or curative properties, the proportion of such ingredients is not invariably decisive. What is of importance is the curative attributes of such ingredients that render the product a medicament and not a cosmetic.
Secondly, though a product is sold without a prescription of a medical practitioner, it does not lead to the immediate conclusion that all products that are sold over/across the counter are cosmetics. There are several products that are sold over the counter and are yet, medicaments.
Thirdly, prior to adjudicating upon whether a product is a medicament or not, the courts have to see what the people who actually use the product understand the product to be. If a product’s primary function is “care” and not “cure”, it is not a medicament. Cosmetic products are used in enhancing or improving a person’s appearance or beauty, whereas medicinal products are used to treat or cure some medical condition. A product that is used mainly in curing or treating ailments or diseases and contains curative ingredients even in small quantities, is to be branded as a medicament.”