NMC took up 185 doctor appeals, nixed all 256 by patients in 5 yrs

Imbalance in Medical Appeals Sparks Debate

In a revelation that has stirred concern among patient rights advocates, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has processed 185 appeals filed by doctors against decisions from state medical councils since its formation in September 2020, up to January 2026. In stark contrast, the commission has dismissed all 256 appeals submitted by patients during the same period. This disparity highlights a growing unease over the accessibility of justice for those alleging medical negligence. The NMC, which replaced the earlier Medical Council of India, was meant to uphold ethical standards in healthcare, but its handling of appeals suggests a tilt favoring medical professionals. Over more than five years, this translates to rejecting roughly one patient appeal every week, leaving many feeling unheard in their quests for accountability.

The roots of this issue trace back to interpretations of the NMC Act of 2019. While the act explicitly allows doctors aggrieved by state council rulings to appeal to the NMC's Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), it remains silent on patients' rights to do the same. In October 2021, the EMRB ruled that only medical practitioners could file such appeals, inserting a restrictive reading into Section 30(3) of the act. Critics argue this decision overlooks the continuity of prior regulations from the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956, which permitted any aggrieved person—including patients—to appeal. This has led to a system where doctors get a second chance, but patients hit a dead end.

Patient Voices Silenced Amid Legal Gray Areas

Patient advocates have been vocal about the perceived injustice. One doctor-turned-activist pointed out the pattern of weekly rejections, noting that no explicit provision in the NMC Act bars public appeals. In fact, a 2024 NMC meeting reportedly agreed to entertain all appeals received by the EMRB, yet rejections persist. Families of alleged negligence victims, like the husband of a Punjab patient whose appeal was twice turned away, have lodged complaints with the health and law ministries, demanding action against what they call illegal practices. These rejection letters often appear formulaic, copied from templates without fresh review, fueling accusations of a mechanical bureaucracy.

Ever since NMC was formed, they have been rejecting, on average, one patient appeal every week—256 rejections in more than five years. There is no explicit provision in the NMC Act which bars the hearing of appeals from the public, and rejecting them has been illegal right from the start.

Legal experts highlight that the 2002 ethics regulations under the old council explicitly granted appeal rights to "any person aggrieved" by state council decisions. These rules remain in force until replaced, as per the NMC Act itself. Yet, the ethics board prioritizes the new act's doctor-specific language, creating a loophole that disadvantages non-practitioners. Non-medical practitioners have even been barred from filing, narrowing the scope further. This setup has left patients navigating a frustrating maze, often without recourse beyond state levels.

Calls for Reform to Ensure Equitable Justice

Efforts to bridge this gap have seen mixed progress. In September 2022, the NMC indicated that patients could appeal to the EMRB, aligning with a 2002 Supreme Court ruling upholding such rights. However, by February 2023, the board reverted to rejecting appeals citing the NMC Act. A 2023 meeting acknowledged the need for patient access, with plans for standard operating procedures (SOPs), but formal amendments to the act are still pending. Recently, the NMC released an SOP for handling doctor appeals, standardizing the process for fairness and transparency, but patients await similar measures. Until legislative changes materialize, the system remains in limbo, prompting doctors and hospitals to bolster their medico-legal defenses.

The imbalance underscores broader tensions in India's healthcare regulation. While the NMC aims to professionalize medicine, sidelining patient appeals risks eroding trust. Advocates push for parity, arguing that true accountability requires equal footing for all parties. State medical councils handle initial complaints, but without a reliable national appeal route for patients, grievances can languish unresolved. This has implications for medical negligence cases, where timely justice is crucial for victims seeking redress or compensation. As discussions continue, the hope is for a framework that balances professional protection with patient empowerment.

In summary, the NMC's record of upholding doctor appeals while uniformly rejecting those from patients exposes a critical flaw in the grievance mechanism. With hundreds affected and legal ambiguities at play, urgent reforms are needed to restore equity and confidence in the system.