Orissa High Court orders NOC for doctor to pursue fellowship
Dr Sahoo, who is currently serving her post-PG bond service as a senior resident in the radiology department at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, had approached the high court after the director of medical education and training, Odisha, declined her request for an NOC via a letter dated April 10, 2025.
The state's rejection was based on revised resolutions issued in 2021 and 2024, which allegedly restricted higher studies during the bond period. Dr Sahoo, however, argued that her bond-executed in June 2020 under the government resolution dated February 3, 2017, contained no such prohibition.
Considering her case, Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ruled in her favour, stating that the 2021 and 2024 resolutions cannot be applied retrospectively to her case. 'The petitioner is bound by the bond dated 20.06.2020. Furthermore, the 2024 Resolution is not applicable to the petitioner. As such, the impugned rejection order dated 10.04.2025 is highly arbitrary and unsustainable in law,' Justice Mohapatra noted.
The high court emphasised that since Dr Sahoo had neither signed nor consented to the modified terms introduced in later resolutions, those could not be imposed on her.
The court ordered the authorities to issue the NOC within a week of the judgment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Don't agree to be party to foeticide': Delhi HC stays termination of 27-week pregnancy of minor rape survivor after AIIMS cautions
With All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) experts flagging that termination of a pregnancy of a minor rape survivor at over 27 weeks will be akin to foeticide, the Delhi High Court Thursday stayed a singe judge's order that had permitted it. This was after the rape survivor's mother agreed to carry the pregnancy to full term. The 16-year-old girl approached the Delhi High Court through her mother last month, seeking permission to terminate an approximately 26-week pregnancy. In response to the court's request for a medical opinion on the termination, the AIIMS New Delhi medical board recommended against the procedure. The medical board noted that the fetus is viable and 'at this gestational age, medical termination of pregnancy, if undertaken, entails significant risks, including a higher likelihood of caesarean section, which could adversely affect her future reproductive health'. 'The medical board feels that continuation of the pregnancy for at least 8 more week is expected to offer a more favourable neonatal outcome,' the board opined in its report on June 28. It also said that if the court considers permitting termination of pregnancy at this stage, 'clear guidance would be necessary on the management of the live fetus/neonate, particularly with respect to decisions on feticide (if permissible under law) or adoption post-delivery, given the viability of the fetus at this gestational age'. On June 30, Justice Manoj Jain, taking into consideration 'the grave mental injury and trauma inflicted upon the mind of minor, on account of sexual assault in question', permitted the termination. For management of the fetus, if born alive, the single judge had further directed, 'If the child is born alive, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS in conjunction with the State Authorities would ensure that every possible and feasible assistance is offered to such child.' Appealing against the order, AIIMS New Delhi, told the Delhi High Court that having regard to totality of circumstances, the direction issued by the single judge for making arrangements for medical termination of pregnancy of a minor and a victim of crime of rape is in derogation of provisions of MTP Act 1971. It also says the orders areuns contrary the to medical opinion expressed by the medical bo,ard comprising medical experts from AIIMS, which included a psychiatrist as well. A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal Thursday requested assistance from the members of the medical board. In the second half of the court session, Dr K Aparna Sharma and Dr Jyoti Meena, two members of the medical board who are professors in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at AIIMS New Delhi, appeared before the court. The doctors informed the court that 'termination of pregnancy is safer at 34 weeks, than now', as inducing labour towards the end of the pregnancy makes it easier for the uterus to respond. The experts also made it clear that in such a case, foeticide will have to be performed to ensure that the baby born is not alive. Following the opinion by the AIIMS experts, CJ Upadhyaya, addressing the counsel for the minor survivor, orally remarked, 'Termination of pregnancy here would mean delivery of a child… it is is not an induced abortion, it is foeticide… unless medically required, it is a criminal offence… Asking us to be party to foeticide, which is permissible for medical requirements only, that I do not agree to.' The bench suggested that the counsel for the minor survivor convince them to carry out the pregnancy while assuring free medical services for both the survivor and the to-be-born child for the next five years, free of charge, at the AIIMS. The bench also offered that they may further issue directions to the Delhi government to ensure the education of the survivor free of cost until Class 10, as well as assisting the survivor in giving up the child for adoption if she so decides ultimately. The counsel, after consulting with the survivor's mother, informed the bench that they are currently open to the option of carrying the pregnancy to full term. However, they are unable to make any decisions regarding adoption at this time and will need the survivor's consent. It was also mentioned that the survivor has only completed education up to Class 2. The bench directed that the survivor should remain admitted in AIIMS for the entire gestation period of 34 weeks or even more if required, till she delivers the child, and should be permitted to stay in the hospital in AIIMS until she becomes medically fit after delivery. Noting that the 'facts and circumstances of this case are very unfortunate, unpleasant and precarious situation where the court has to ensure the welfare of both the minor rape victim as also the child to be born', the court also sought an affidavit within two weeks from the Delhi government's department of women and child development. The affidavit must detail all the assistance it can provide to the survivor and the baby to be born, including facilities for education, skill development, and vocational training. The court kept the appeal pending and posted it for consideration next on October 15.
India Today
21 hours ago
- India Today
Karnataka seeks central probe into clinical trial lapses at HCG hospitals
The Karnataka government has written to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), requesting an investigation into alleged irregularities in clinical trials conducted at the Bengaluru-based Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG) hospitals. The move follows concerns raised by Justice P Krishna Bhat, a retired judge and former chairperson of the hospital's Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) regarding patient safety and procedural violations during trial to the media, Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao said the decision to seek an inquiry stemmed from troubling reports. 'This is based on certain information we saw and received, including some news articles, and then we found out there were some issues. This is a very serious issue, and it has been raised by the ethics committee of HCG Cancer Hospital itself by their own committee, chaired by Justice Krishna Bhat,' he said. He added that the Health Commissioner has already written to the Drug Controller General of India. 'We have asked them to look into the issue and investigate the matter, because it has serious implications regarding clinical trials and related concerns. I do not know what the truth is behind the whole thing, but it must be investigated by a responsible agency, and that is the CDSCO,' Rao BS Ajai Kumar, Founder and Chairman of HCG hospitals, responding to the allegations, issued a statement reiterating the hospital's adherence to all regulatory frameworks. 'We have noticed some unverified information about HCG, a pioneer in cancer care in India and Africa. We assure you that we strictly adhere to all guidelines set by regulatory authorities, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). Currently, we are successfully conducting a significant number of trials with utmost transparency, prioritising patient safety, approved by our Ethics Committee. Our commitment to delivering exceptional care remains unwavering,' Dr Ajai Kumar said on behalf of Healthcare Global Enterprises of the concerns were outlined in a letter dated June 30, 2025, by Health and Family Welfare Department Commissioner Sivakumar K B, who highlighted issues raised by Justice Bhat. These included unchecked conflicts of interest and irregularities in patient enrolment during trials, as reported by South letter, addressed to the Drugs Controller General of India, stated: 'These concerns have been flagged by none other than the chairperson of the institutional ethics committee, who has subsequently resigned.' It added: 'These lapses, if proven, will undermine the strict ethical principles laid down by the CDSCO, Department of Health Research, Indian Council of Medical Research, and global regulatory bodies like the World Health Organisation, which mandate the highest standards of patient safety and ethical conduct in clinical trials.'advertisementThe Commissioner described the matter as 'of serious concern' and called for a thorough probe into the allegations of 'unfair clinical trials being conducted at Bengaluru's HCG.'Justice Bhat had raised multiple concerns with then Chief Executive Officer Raj Gore and former Medical Director Dr Harish Reddy following discussions in several ethics committee meetings, in a March 5, 2025, letter, which was accessed by South of the most serious issues was a potential conflict of interest involving Dr Sathish, who allegedly served as both principal investigator and in a supervisory role as Director of the Ethics Committee. Justice Bhat wrote that this dual role posed ethical risks, including compromised patient safety, dilution of inclusion criteria, and resistance to procedural letter noted that although there is no formal post of 'Director of Clinical Trials' within ethics committees, institutions may appoint someone as 'Director of Clinical Trial Development' at the corporate level, typically endorsed by top leadership. Justice Bhat stated that during the 18 committee meetings he attended, the individual never clarified that he was not serving in such a dual concerns listed in the letter included rushed presentations, bypassing informed review processes, an excessive number of poorly explained trial proposals, and direct communication between the investigator and sponsors, which could open the door to commercial bias and protocol manipulation.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Karnataka#Bengaluru
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Health department seeks probe into ‘unethical' clinical trials at HCG
BENGALURU: The Health and Family Welfare Department has written to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), seeking an investigation into alleged unethical clinical trials at Bengaluru-based HCG Hospital, a well-known cancer care hospital chain. The department acted after Justice P Krishna Bhat, former chairperson of the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) at HCG, raised serious concerns and resigned earlier this year. His resignation followed complaints about how clinical trials were being handled, especially patient safety, ethical violations and conflicts of interest. In a letter dated June 30, the health commissioner noted that the allegations raised questions about compliance with rules and integrity of clinical research. 'These lapses, if proven, will undermine the strict ethical principles laid down by DGCI, ICMR, DHR, and bodies like WHO,' the commissioner said. Justice Bhat had written on March 5 outlining several concerns. One of the main issues was a conflict of interest — Dr Sathish, director of clinical trials at HCG, was also acting as principal investigator (PI) or co-PI in many of the clinical trials he was supposed to oversee. This, according to medical research rules, is not allowed. ICMR states members of an ethics committee should not act as investigators in the same studies, as it affects independent judgement and patient safety.
