Medical Professionals Do Not Have Exclusive Right To Use Prefix ‘Dr’: Kerala High Court Rejects Challenge To Physiotherapists Using Title

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by medical associations and individual practitioners challenging provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 and the Competency Based Curriculum framed thereunder, insofar as they permit physiotherapists and occupational therapists to use the prefix ‘Dr’ with appropriate suffixes.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun, while dismissing the writ petitions, observed that “the National Medical Commission Act does not contain any provision conferring the title ‘Doctor’ on qualified medical professionals, and in the absence of such a statutory entitlement, medical practitioners cannot claim an exclusive right to prefix ‘Dr’ to their names”.

Advocate TK Sreekala represented the petitioners, while Praveen KS, CGC, represented the respondents.

Background

The Indian Medical Association filed the writ petitions, with the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and several individual medical practitioners, challenging the regulatory framework governing allied and healthcare professionals.

The petitioners contended that physiotherapists and occupational therapists, though part of allied healthcare services, were being wrongly elevated to the status of first-contact healthcare providers under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021.

It was argued that the impugned Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy permits these professionals to directly receive patients, conduct assessments, and use the prefix ‘Dr’ with suffixes such as ‘PT’ and ‘OT’, thereby creating confusion among the public and equating them with practitioners of modern scientific medicine.

The petitioners relied on provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, to contend that only persons holding recognised medical qualifications and registered in the State or National Medical Register are entitled to practise modern medicine.

Reliance was also placed on Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, to argue that unauthorised use of titles implying qualification to practise modern medicine is penalised, and that physiotherapists and occupational therapists cannot therefore use the prefix ‘Dr’.

The respondents, including the Union of India, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, and professional associations of physiotherapists and occupational therapists, opposed the petitions, contending that the allied healthcare framework was enacted after parliamentary deliberation and that the statute recognises allied and healthcare professionals as independent professionals within their domain.

It was further contended that neither the National Medical Commission Act nor allied statutes confer any statutory monopoly on medical practitioners over the use of the title ‘Dr’.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scheme and legislative history of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 and noted that the Act was enacted to regulate and maintain standards of education and services by allied and healthcare professionals, and to provide for coordinated and integrated development of healthcare delivery.

The Court analysed the statutory definitions of “allied health professional” and “healthcare professional” under the NCAHP Act and noted that healthcare professionals are statutorily entitled to provide preventive, curative, rehabilitative, therapeutic and promotional health services within their scope of practice.

The Bench held that while allied and healthcare professionals cannot prescribe medicines or provide allopathic treatment reserved for qualified medical practitioners, their statutory recognition as healthcare professionals cannot be curtailed by judicially reading down parliamentary enactments.

The Court observed that the NCAHP Act has an overriding effect and was enacted after parliamentary scrutiny, including recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, in which the National Medical Commission was also involved.

On the issue of the prefix ‘Dr’, the High Court undertook a historical and statutory analysis of the origin and use of the title “Doctor”, noting that the term originated as an academic title and was historically used for persons with higher educational qualifications, including in fields such as theology, law and philosophy.

The Court held that the National Medical Commission Act does not contain any provision conferring the title “Doctor” on qualified medical professionals, nor does it create a statutory entitlement to exclusively use the prefix ‘Dr’.

The expression “title” used in Section 40 of the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act was held not to statutorily entitle qualified medical professionals to prefix ‘Dr’ to their names.

The Bench accepted the respondents’ contention that in the absence of any statutory provision granting exclusivity, medical practitioners cannot claim a monopoly over the use of the prefix ‘Dr’.

“Therefore, the contention that the title 'Doctor' exclusively belongs to medical professionals is a misconception since even now, like in the olden times, persons with higher educational qualifications like PhD are entitled to use the title 'Doctor”, the Bench concluded.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions challenging the provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 and the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy.

All connected petitions were dismissed accordingly.

Cause Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:6168)

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate VV Asokan; Advocates TK Sreekala, S Parvathi, Nikita Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, KG Anil

Respondents: Praveen KS, CGC

Click here to read/download Judgment