Bombay High Court to Hear Challenge Against Dentists Performing Hair Transplants
Last Updated on September 12, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a case blurring the definition between the two fields of medicine, the Bombay High Court has agreed to consider a public interest litigation against rules enabling dentists to perform hair transplant surgeries. The Dynamic Dermatologist and Hair Transplant Association filed a court case against the Dental Council of India guidelines in December 2022 which have been quashed by the Indian government, thus initiating a discussion regarding the competence of medical practitioners for their clients.
The PIL, heard by Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar, argues that permitting Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons to perform aesthetic and hair transplant surgery poses severe health risks due to their insufficient training. Critical surgeries such as these, must therefore be entrusted to dermatologists and plastic surgeons, who are specifically trained for the procedure.
The basic flaw is that it raises competency and patient care concerns. The petitioners, in contrast, argued that hair transplant procedures were an extremely technical work that a dental practitioner may not be qualified enough for, asserting that severe facial injuries or complications may emerge. They argued that aesthetic and hair transplant procedures were not part of the dental curricula in the major schools, implying that there was no training in the area.
The case also gives concern regarding regulation in the field of medicine. In light of the recent amendments to the Dental Council of India through the National Dental Commission under the 2023 Act, the court has further instructed the petitioners to compute the new body in the proceeding, which adds a new twist into the case.
It has prayed for a number of reliefs: removal of the disputed guidelines, vigorous prosecution of anyone who practices without authorization, and establishment of a regulatory authority to prevent practice of unauthorized forms of Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Besides, the petitioners have asked for a stop on misleading advertisements and ensure the public of the risks posed by unqualified individuals.
This case stands for bigger conflicts within the medical fraternity over specialty specialization and rights for the broadening practice domains for certain specialists versus the rights for the optimum quality of patient care. While the court begins the hearing on September 19, a decision may lead to changes affecting the regulations of the practice of Indian medicine rules that protect consumers.
This is thus expected to pave the way for future legal development of this and other cross-cutting medical specialties with policy implications on future medical practices and protection of patients across a broad range of healthcare fields.
