NEW DELHI: Observing that the nature of duties and responsibilities of MBBS and ayurved doctors are quite different, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that practitioners of the alternative system of medicine, who do not attend emergency duty and perform complicated surgery, are not entitled to equal salary to that of their allopathic counterparts.
Noting that alternate system of medicine like ayurveda has its pride of place in history and should be promoted in the country, a bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal said that at present, the practitioners of the two stream of medicines cannot be treated at par in terms of salary as the MBBS doctors in government hospitals are also supposed to perform statutory duty like doing post-mortem which their ayurved counterparts are not allowed to do. It also said that the MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundreds of patients in OPD in hospitals, which is not the case with the ayurved practitioners.
“Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and to provide trauma care. By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by ayurved doctors,” the bench.
The court set aside an order of Gujarat high court which had held that those possessing a degree of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery) should be treated at par with the doctors holding MBBS degrees.
“It is also not possible for ayurved doctors to assist surgeons performing complicated surgeries, while MBBS doctors can assist. We shall not be understood to mean as though one system of medicine is superior to the other. It is not our mandate nor within our competence to assess the relative merits of these two systems of medical sciences. As a matter of fact, we are conscious that the history of ayurveda dates back to several centuries,” it said.
“Therefore, we have no doubt that every alternative system of medicine may have its pride of place in history. But today, the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations. A study of ayurved does not authorise them to perform these surgeries,” the bench said.
The court noted that a post-mortem or autopsy is not carried out by/in the presence of ayurved doctors and even AYUSH doctors are normally notified as competent to perform post-mortem. “It is common knowledge that during out-patient days (OPD) in general hospitals in cities/towns, MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundreds of patients, which is not the case with ayurved doctors,” it said.
“Therefore, even while recognising the importance of ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay,” the bench said.
Noting that alternate system of medicine like ayurveda has its pride of place in history and should be promoted in the country, a bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal said that at present, the practitioners of the two stream of medicines cannot be treated at par in terms of salary as the MBBS doctors in government hospitals are also supposed to perform statutory duty like doing post-mortem which their ayurved counterparts are not allowed to do. It also said that the MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundreds of patients in OPD in hospitals, which is not the case with the ayurved practitioners.
“Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and to provide trauma care. By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by ayurved doctors,” the bench.
The court set aside an order of Gujarat high court which had held that those possessing a degree of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery) should be treated at par with the doctors holding MBBS degrees.
“It is also not possible for ayurved doctors to assist surgeons performing complicated surgeries, while MBBS doctors can assist. We shall not be understood to mean as though one system of medicine is superior to the other. It is not our mandate nor within our competence to assess the relative merits of these two systems of medical sciences. As a matter of fact, we are conscious that the history of ayurveda dates back to several centuries,” it said.
“Therefore, we have no doubt that every alternative system of medicine may have its pride of place in history. But today, the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations. A study of ayurved does not authorise them to perform these surgeries,” the bench said.
The court noted that a post-mortem or autopsy is not carried out by/in the presence of ayurved doctors and even AYUSH doctors are normally notified as competent to perform post-mortem. “It is common knowledge that during out-patient days (OPD) in general hospitals in cities/towns, MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundreds of patients, which is not the case with ayurved doctors,” it said.
“Therefore, even while recognising the importance of ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay,” the bench said.
