Authorities failed to take legal action against illegal dental clinics: HC: The Tribune India


Tribune press service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 17

Acting on a petition against the “unauthorized and illegal activities of dental charlatans”, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana said the situation was “very pathetic” so far. The bench also claimed that it looked like the state and the Punjab Dental Council were involved in a blame game, rather than tackling the real problem.

The IDA Petition

The claim follows a petition filed by the Indian Dental Association, Fazilka Circle, ordering the state and other respondents to stop the unauthorized and illegal activities of dental quacks in Fazilka district.

The bench added that it is of the view that the official defendants failed in their legal obligations to act for the welfare of the general public by failing to take immediate legal action against illegally operating dental clinics.

The claims by Judge Raj Mohan Singh follow a petition filed by the Indian Dental Association, Fazilka Circle, through lawyer Davinder Singh Khurana for ordering the state and other respondents to halt the activities unauthorized and illegal dental quacks in Fazilka district. Khurana argued that the “dental charlatans” were working illegally, without required qualifications or registration of their clinics under the Dentists Act 1948.

Resuming the case, Judge Raj Mohan Singh claimed that the claimant, a dental association, had demonstrated “incriminating facts with reference to statutory requirements”. A team, consisting of the District Dental Health Officer and others, carried out an inspection prior to submitting their investigation report dated October 4, 2018, following representation by the petitioner. It referred to the fact that dental quacks didn’t have a valid degree/diploma.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh added that the report had been forwarded to the Punjab Dental Board for necessary action. The Board, in its response, argued that Fazilka’s civilian physician had been instructed to take the necessary action. The Board also argued that the Civil Surgeon, in turn, responded saying he was unable to take action due to the expectation of this motion in brief.

“Let the necessary be done within one month from today,” concluded the Chamber. The case will now come up in the third week of April.

Larry A. Schroeder