NMC and its Headless Ethics Board: Shielding Negligent Doctors

NMC, Headless Ethics Body and a Broken System 

Alok Kumar’s five-year-old son, Aayansh, died on December 26, 2023, due to what Kumar alleges was blatant medical negligence. The Delhi Medical Council (DMC), after a thorough investigation, ruled in Kumar’s favour and directed action against the doctor responsible. However, the relief was short-lived. The Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), functioning under the National Medical Commission (NMC)—India's apex regulatory body for medical practice—overturned the DMC’s decision.

The EMRB, one of the four autonomous boards under the National Medical Commission, is tasked with maintaining ethical standards in medical practice and adjudicating cases of medical negligence. But this crucial body has been under fire in recent years. Critics argue that it has fostered an environment that shields hospitals and doctors while leaving victims of medical malpractice without recourse. Alarmingly, the EMRB currently operates without a President, as confirmed by the NMC’s official website.

For Alok Kumar, the experience of seeking justice has been marred by opacity and allegations of conflict of interest. “When my case was heard, the EMRB under the National Medical Commission structured the hearing in such a way that I couldn’t listen to what the hospital and doctors said, and they couldn’t hear what I said,” Kumar recounts. He further revealed a troubling connection: “The expert appointed in my case was closely associated with the doctor responsible for my son’s death. I challenged this in the high court, citing clear conflict of interest.”

NMC, Headless Ethics Body and a Broken System 

Alok Kumar’s five-year-old son, Aayansh, died on December 26, 2023, due to what Kumar alleges was blatant medical negligence. The Delhi Medical Council (DMC), after a thorough investigation, ruled in Kumar’s favour and directed action against the doctor responsible. However, the relief was short-lived. The Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), functioning under the National Medical Commission (NMC)—India's apex regulatory body for medical practice—overturned the DMC’s decision.

The EMRB, one of the four autonomous boards under the National Medical Commission, is tasked with maintaining ethical standards in medical practice and adjudicating cases of medical negligence. But this crucial body has been under fire in recent years. Critics argue that it has fostered an environment that shields hospitals and doctors while leaving victims of medical malpractice without recourse. Alarmingly, the EMRB currently operates without a President, as confirmed by the NMC’s official website.

For Alok Kumar, the experience of seeking justice has been marred by opacity and allegations of conflict of interest. “When my case was heard, the EMRB under the National Medical Commission structured the hearing in such a way that I couldn’t listen to what the hospital and doctors said, and they couldn’t hear what I said,” Kumar recounts. He further revealed a troubling connection: “The expert appointed in my case was closely associated with the doctor responsible for my son’s death. I challenged this in the high court, citing clear conflict of interest.”

Adding to Kumar’s frustrations was the NMC’s dismissal of the DMC’s report, which had outlined specific evidence of negligence. “The NMC didn’t counter a single point made by the DMC but still quashed their report. The EMRB and NMC appear to be among the most corrupt bodies in the country,” Kumar laments.

Bias Against Victims: Orders Favouring Hospitals

According to the guidelines of the National Medical Commission, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board must comprise a President, two full-time members, and two part-time members. However, a visit to their official website reveals a startling reality—none of these five positions are currently filled. The lone individual listed as part of the EMRB is noted to have completed their tenure in September 2022. This raises serious questions: Who is currently deciding cases related to medical negligence? Why isn’t this process transparent, with the names of decision-makers publicly available? Can decisions made by a Board that, on paper, does not exist, be legally valid?

These concerns are echoed by Prashant Vaxish, an advocate specialising in medical negligence cases. Vaxish received a letter from the EMRB in August 2024 regarding a case. “It’s outrageous that, as per the NMC’s own website, EMRB positions are vacant. The government might claim they’re in the process of filling the vacancies or blame outdated information on the website, but the crux of the matter is clear: this entire infrastructure is funded by taxpayers. I’ve received an order from the EMRB in August this year, but there’s no clarity on who exactly is making these decisions when the website shows that all positions in the Board are vacant,” Vaxish remarks.

Like Kumar, Vaxish argues that the EMRB and other boards under the National Medical Commission are often biased toward doctors and hospitals. “The EMRB has a crucial mandate to ensure ethical medical practices and accountability in patient care across the country. Without proper registration, a medical practitioner cannot legally treat patients, and ethical oversight is essential to safeguard public health. Yet, this mandate is undermined when the Board itself operates in such an opaque manner,” Vaxish explains.

He further elaborates on the avenues available to victims of medical negligence. “If a patient is wronged and doesn’t get justice from the State Medical Council, they have the right to appeal to the EMRB. If dissatisfied with the EMRB’s verdict, they can escalate the matter to the National Medical Commission. However, despite these provisions, the system seems designed to protect doctors and hospitals. The EMRB routinely dismisses patient appeals and, in some cases, even falsely asserts that only doctors—not patients—have the right to appeal,” he says.

Many victims of medical negligence share similar stories of frustration and despair like Kumar. Rajesh Rai, for instance, alleges that he lost his 42-year-old sister, Babita Rai, due to medical negligence at Tata Motors Hospital. Since her passing, Rai has been tirelessly writing to authorities, from local officials to the Prime Minister’s Office, but to no avail.

Rai claims that Babita underwent surgery without appropriate consent and that the procedure was conducted by an unqualified doctor. “I have written over 1000 mails to all the authorities concerned including the Prime Minister’s Office but the government has turned a deaf ear to my pleas” he says. Rai, like Kumar and Vaxish, accuses the system of being blatantly biased. “There is no doubt the entire system is corrupt and favours the doctors.”

Dr. Kunal Saha, President of People for Better Treatment, an organisation that supports medical negligence victims, adds his voice to the growing criticism. “The EMRB is supposed to be the apex body for handling cases of medical negligence by law, but are they doing their job? I don’t think so. The body itself is defunct,” he states.

Dr. Saha says he has written to the NMC to address this alarming situation but has received no response. Frustrated, he warns that he may take legal action. “We’ve sent hundreds of victims’ appeals to the EMRB after state medical councils rejected them. Today, the EMRB does not even exist on paper as is evident from their own website. If patients need justice, where are they supposed to go?”

The lack of accountability is a boon for negligent doctors, according to Saha. “All this works in favour of negligent doctors because today they are not accountable to anybody. We are extremely upset with how the National Medical Commission and EMRB are functioning. We’ve raised these issues with the Union Health Ministry, but their silence is deafening. This shows that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is well aware of the dismal state of affairs at the Commission,” he concludes.

Opaque Functioning of EMRB Under Scrutiny

Sachin Jain, a lawyer with extensive experience in medical negligence cases, sheds light on the opaque and unfair functioning of the EMRB and the NMC. “During hearings, both parties are kept in the dark about each other’s submissions. This is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice,” he explains. Jain further reveals that the EMRB does not disclose the identities, qualifications, or subject specialisations of the members issuing critical decisions. “If you look at their orders, you won’t find any information about the specialisation of the doctors making these life-altering judgments. When they appoint experts, the process is not transparent, and in some cases, even interested parties are brought in as experts,” he adds.

The lack of transparency extends to the publication of orders. Jain highlights that the EMRB has failed to publish its rulings on its website, a fundamental requirement for any quasi-judicial body. “If their orders were available publicly, it would become clear that they are almost always against the victims and in favour of hospitals,” Jain asserts.

The challenges faced by victims are further illustrated by the case of Uttam Chand Meena, who lost his wife, Gargi Meena, due to alleged medical negligence. Less than two months after The Probe highlighted her case on June 26, 2024, the EMRB ordered a three-month suspension for the gynaecologist involved.

However, even this rare favourable order came after a prolonged struggle. “During COVID, my case was initially heard, and I was hopeful for a resolution,” Meena recalls. “But no order came despite consistent follow-ups. I had to approach the high court, which issued directions. Only then did the NMC and EMRB begin to respond.”

The Probe has sought clarity from the NMC on critical issues regarding the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB). Specific questions have been raised about the prolonged vacancies in the Board's composition and the steps the NMC plans to take to address this glaring gap. This article will be updated with the NMC’s response as soon as it is received.