MedicalNegligence – Health Ministry Directs NMC to Review Appeal Rejections
MedicalNegligence – The Union Health Ministry has asked the National Medical Commission to review its handling of patient appeals related to medical negligence cases.
For several years, hundreds of complaints alleging professional misconduct and medical negligence were turned away by the country’s top medical regulator. Now, following intervention from the Union Health Ministry, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has begun examining its approach to such appeals.
Ministry Seeks Action from Regulator
The directive came after the Health Ministry instructed the NMC to take necessary action in accordance with the law and inform the government about the outcome. The NMC oversees medical education, professional standards, institutions and research across India.
The move follows concerns that the commission’s Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB) had rejected a significant number of appeals filed by patients and their families. According to information obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application, 256 appeals were dismissed between September 15, 2020, and January 7, 2026. These appeals challenged decisions made by various State Medical Councils in cases involving alleged negligence or misconduct.
RTI Activist Raises Concerns
The issue gained attention after Kerala-based RTI activist Dr. K.V. Babu formally approached the Health Ministry in October 2025. In his complaint, he questioned the rejection of patient appeals and pointed to alleged lapses by certain NMC members in handling these matters.
Responding to his representation, the Medical Education (Policy) division of the ministry wrote to the NMC on January 20, asking it to examine the concerns raised. Subsequently, on February 5, the EMRB informed Dr. Babu that the matter was under consideration.
Speaking about the development, Dr. Babu described the response as encouraging. He maintained that since 2020, the EMRB had consistently dismissed appeals from patients who sought to challenge decisions of State Medical Councils.
Questions Over Ethical Oversight
In his letter, Dr. Babu also urged the ministry to constitute an independent body to look into alleged acts of omission and commission by certain Registered Medical Practitioners. He cited provisions under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which stipulate that violation of existing laws can attract disciplinary action.
The concerns highlight a broader debate over how medical ethics cases are reviewed and whether patients have adequate avenues for redress when dissatisfied with regulatory outcomes.
Appeal Rights and Legal Gaps
Under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, doctors found guilty of negligence by State Medical Councils have the right to file appeals before the EMRB under Section 30(3). If the EMRB upholds disciplinary action, medical professionals can pursue a further appeal under Section 30(4).
However, patients do not enjoy an equivalent statutory right to challenge decisions. A previous provision — Clause 8.8 — had allowed patients to appeal, following directions from the Supreme Court in 2004. That clause was later removed when the Medical Council of India was dissolved and replaced by the National Medical Commission.
Recognising this gap, the Health Ministry in December 2022 published a draft proposal to amend the NMC Act to restore appeal rights for patients. The proposed changes were placed in the public domain for feedback, but they have not yet been enacted.
Call for Greater Transparency
The recent intervention by the Health Ministry has renewed focus on transparency and fairness within the medical regulatory framework. Observers say a clear and balanced appeals mechanism is essential to maintain trust in the healthcare system, while also ensuring due process for medical professionals.
As the NMC reviews the concerns raised, stakeholders will be watching closely to see whether procedural changes follow. The outcome could shape how future cases of medical negligence are addressed and whether patients are granted a stronger voice in the regulatory process.