The high court ruled that a private doctor's clinic is not a commercial establishment and therefore not subject to the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The court struck down a 1977 amendment that included medical practitioners' establishments in the definition of commercial establishments. This ruling means that doctors' clinics do not have to pay commercial rates for utilities or renew registration annually.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
614 views
Running A Clinic Is Not Commercial Activity
The high court ruled that a private doctor's clinic is not a commercial establishment and therefore not subject to the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The court struck down a 1977 amendment that included medical practitioners' establishments in the definition of commercial establishments. This ruling means that doctors' clinics do not have to pay commercial rates for utilities or renew registration annually.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
Mumbai
The Times of India
Advanced Search
You are here: Home City Mumbai
Running a clinic is not commercial activity: HC
Rosy Sequeira, TNN | Jul 11, 2014, 11.40PM IST inShare MUMBAI: A private doctor's clinic is not a commercial establishment, the high court has held, taking medical practitioners out of the purview of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. A division bench of Justices V M Kanade and P D Kode has struck down a 1977 amendment that included the medical practitioners' establishments. The constitutional validity of the section, 2 (7), was challenged by an Andheri-based gynaecologist, Dr Shubhada Motwani, prosecuted for not registering her clinic. The punishment comprised a fine, calculated for each day of non-registration. She moved court. Her lawyer, S C Naidu, argued that a medical practitioner's clinic cannot fall within the definition of commercial establishment as a doctor provides service to patients, an activity that cannot be termed commercial. He argued that the amendment had included in its ambit legal practitioners and CAs as well. Lawyers moved court, and the HC held, in 1984, that the amendment was ultra vires (beyond the powers), striking down their inclusion in the definition of commercial establishment. In 2006, CAs were given relief. In the Motwani case, the judges upheld Naidu's submission that an SC judgment of May 2, 1968 (in Dr Devendra Surti vs State of Gujarat), where it was held that the private dispensary of a doctor is not a commercial establishment, will apply. "Therefore, the amendment incorporating medical practitioners within the definition of commercial establishment will have to be held ultra vires and is accordingly struck down," the HC judges said, directing that criminal prosecution initiated against Motwani is quashed. The Indian Medical Association's Dr Jayant Lele said the move is significant and welcome. "Clinics shouldn't be treated like shops. How can a general practitioner afford to pay commercial rates for power and water?" he asked. He said the IMA would now take up a legal battle to ensure that doctors' clinics don't have to pay commercial rates for power and water. "The act's provisions are supposed to guard the interests of employees. But renewing registration every year was a chore for doctors. Moreover, doctors were harassed if there was delay in getting the paperwork done." Dr Lalit Kapoor of the Association of Medical Consultants said the HC's move would ensure doctors require one licence less than before to set up their practice. "We have
been requesting the BMC to work out single-window clearance for doctors' clinics and nursing homes."