Legally present
  • Home
  • Article
  • Latest News Update
  • Law Schools
  • Supreme Court
  • Weekly Digest
Reading: Kerala High Court: Physiotherapists & Occupational Therapists Cannot Use ‘Dr.’ Prefix Without Recognised Medical Qualification
Share
Legally present
  • Home
  • Latest News Update
  • Supreme Court
  • Article
  • know your lawyer
  • Weekly Digest
  • Home
  • Article
  • Latest News Update
  • Law Schools
  • Supreme Court
  • Weekly Digest
Follow US
Legally Present > High Court > Kerala High Court: Physiotherapists & Occupational Therapists Cannot Use ‘Dr.’ Prefix Without Recognised Medical Qualification
High Court

Kerala High Court: Physiotherapists & Occupational Therapists Cannot Use ‘Dr.’ Prefix Without Recognised Medical Qualification

Last updated: 2025/11/06 at 5:08 PM
Published November 6, 2025
Share

The Kerala High Court has issued a crucial directive regarding the professional designation used by physiotherapists and occupational therapists, ruling that they cannot use the prefix “Dr.” unless they hold recognised medical qualifications under applicable law. The Court observed that using the title ‘Dr.’ without statutory authorization would amount to a violation of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916.

Contents
Background of the CaseArguments PresentedPetitioner’s ArgumentsGovernment PositionCourt’s ObservationsLegal Foundation of the DecisionIndian Medical Degrees Act, 1916Issue of Public ConfusionImpact of the RulingFor Physiotherapists and Occupational TherapistsFor Healthcare EcosystemFor Educational InstitutionsWhy This Decision MattersConclusionAlso Read

This judgment carries profound implications for healthcare practice, professional identity, and public perception, especially in the context of increasing confusion among patients regarding medical credentials.

Background of the Case

The matter came before the Kerala High Court through a writ petition filed by the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (IAPMR). The petition highlighted a conflict between:

  1. The Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, which regulates the conferment and usage of medical degrees and titles.
  2. The Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy (CBCPT/OT), which allegedly permitted physiotherapists and occupational therapists to use the prefix “Dr.” in certain contexts.

The petitioner argued that physiotherapists and occupational therapists who do not hold medical degrees (such as MBBS or equivalent recognized medical qualifications under the National Medical Commission Act) should not be allowed to prefix their names with “Dr.”, as it misleads patients into believing that they are doctors in the conventional medical sense.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Physiotherapy and occupational therapy are paramedical and rehabilitative fields, not medical doctor qualifications.
  • The Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 prohibits anyone who does not hold a recognized medical degree from using titles that imply medical doctor status.
  • Allowing physiotherapists to use “Dr.” could confuse patients, leading them to believe they are being treated by medical doctors, which could have serious health implications.

Government Position

The Court was informed that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare had already issued directions to remove the use of “Dr.” from the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy as part of the Approved Syllabus 2025. The Ministry acknowledged that any physiotherapist using the ‘Dr.’ title without possessing a legally recognized medical degree would be in violation of the law.

Court’s Observations

Justice V.G. Arun noted that:

  • There exists a prima facie conflict between the legal prohibition under the Indian Medical Degrees Act and the curriculum that previously allowed physiotherapists to use “Dr.”
  • The matter required immediate interim protection to prevent misleading representation in the healthcare system.

The Court held:

“There shall be a direction to the competent authorities to ensure that the prefix ‘Dr.’ mentioned in Exts. P1 and P1(a) is not used by Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists without recognised medical qualification.”

The Court further scheduled the case for next hearing on December 1, 2025.

Legal Foundation of the Decision

Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916

The Act prohibits the use of medical titles such as “Doctor”, “Dr.”, “Surgeon”, etc., by individuals who do not possess degrees recognized by statutory medical councils.

Issue of Public Confusion

The judgment takes into account the protection of public interest, noting that patients often rely on professional titles while seeking healthcare. Misuse of the prefix could:

  • Mislead patients into believing they are consulting a medical doctor.
  • Disrupt informed decision-making regarding treatment options.
  • Create a false sense of professional equivalence between medical doctors and rehabilitative therapists.

Impact of the Ruling

For Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists

  • They may continue their professional practice but cannot use the prefix “Dr.” unless holding degrees such as MBBS, BDS, MD, MS, or other recognized medical qualifications.
  • Those holding PhD degrees can still use “Dr.”, but must clarify that their doctorate is academic, not medical (e.g., Dr. (PhD), Physiotherapist).

For Healthcare Ecosystem

  • The judgment strengthens transparency in healthcare labeling and credentials.
  • Ensures that patients understand who is administering treatment.
  • Reinforces legal boundaries among medical and paramedical professions.

For Educational Institutions

  • Physiotherapy and occupational therapy colleges must ensure removal of “Dr.” prefixes from academic material, ID cards, and promotional literature unless legally justified.

Why This Decision Matters

This ruling comes at a time when healthcare specializations are expanding, and professional identity claims are becoming more competitive. The Court’s clear direction:

  • Prevents misrepresentation of professional expertise.
  • Safeguards patient rights to informed medical decisions.
  • Promotes clarity and trust in the healthcare system.

It also reaffirms that titles carry legal accountability and cannot be used loosely.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s order marks a critical reaffirmation of legal and ethical boundaries in healthcare. By ensuring that physiotherapists and occupational therapists do not use the “Dr.” prefix without recognized medical degrees, the Court has prioritized patient awareness, legal compliance, and professional clarity.

The case now remains pending for further hearing on December 1, 2025.

Also Read

No Compassionate Appointment When Missing Employee Retires Before 7-Year Presumption of Death Period: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hails India’s Progress in Road Transport Infrastructure: “Highways Smoother Than Ever Before”

You Might Also Like

Delhi HC Clarifies Scope of Section 73 CrPC in PMLA Investigations

Suspension of Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Sentence in Unnao Rape Case: Why the Delhi High Court Order Raises Serious Legal Concerns

Karnataka High Court Recalls Interim Stay on State’s Paid Menstrual Leave Policy: Detailed Legal Analysis

Kerala High Court Stays ECI Order Delisting Kerala Congress & Other Parties Ahead of Panchayat Polls: Key Takeaways

Karnataka High Court Closed PIL Seeking Ban on Porn Websites and Apps

TAGGED: Dr., Kerala High Court, Physiotherapists
Share This Article
Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Whatsapp LinkedIn Telegram
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

[mc4wp_form]
Popular News
Latest News Update

Supreme Court To Decide Constitutionality Of Bar On Divorced & Single Men From Availing Surrogacy Under Surrogacy Act, 2021

Vanita Vanita April 27, 2025
Madras High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost for Filing Frivolous Public Interest Litigation
Supreme Court Grants Bail in GST Offence: Emphasizes Bail Should Be the Norm Under Section 132 of CGST Act
Supreme Court Lays Down Clear Guidelines for Interpretation of Contracts and Deeds: Key Takeaways from Annaya Kocha Shetty v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose
Supreme Court to Decide: Is Section 138 NI Act Complaint Maintainable If Cheque Issued for Cash Debt Above ₹20,000?
lawferAd image
lexibalAd image

Categories

  • Supreme Court
  • Latest News Update
  • High Court
  • Article
  • know your lawyer

About US

Legally Present is an Indian legal news platform covering court judgments, legal rights, and insights for law professionals and students.
Quick Link
  • My Bookmark
  • InterestsNew
Top Categories
  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Subscribe US

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

[mc4wp_form]

© Legally Present All Rights Reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?