Seven ‘failed’docs petition SC over faulty PGIM exam The petitioners, in their application, say they sat for the MD (Family Medicine) examination (a postgraduate qualification) conducted by the PGIM on July 15, this year, the “unconfirmed” results of whic

Seven doctors have gone to the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 9) seeking leave to proceed and interim relief in a fundamental rights application against the Postgraduate Institute of Medicine (PGIM) alleging irregularities in the July 2013 final examination to qualify as MDs (Family Medicine).

The petitioners, in their application, say they sat for the MD (Family Medicine) examination (a postgraduate qualification) conducted by the PGIM on July 15, this year, the “unconfirmed” results of which were released on July 19. Of the 11 doctors who sat the examination, only four had passed, according to the unconfirmed results.

Then the seven doctors (who have now petitioned the Supreme Court) complained to the PGIM’s Board of Management about the conduct of the examination. Thereafter, the PGIM’s Board of Management appointed an independent Inquiry Committee to look into the matter, according to the petition.

The Inquiry Committee in a notice published on September 9 on the official website of the PGIM had informed that the unconfirmed results had been cancelled as two of the four components of the MD (Family Medicine) examination were irregular, the doctors state, adding that they then wrote to the PGIM Board of Management to hold fresh examination under a new Board of Study in Family Medicine. However there had been no reply.

The doctors further state that two members of the Board of Study in Family Medicine, in question have also resigned citing irregularities in the holding of the examination.

Stating that the final examination was not properly conducted by the Board of Study in terms of the law, the application alleges irregularities in the conduct of the examination and conflicts of interest of some examiners.

Among the irregularities alleged by the petitioners are that although two doctors (cited as respondents) had obtained less marks required for a particular part of the examination, their marks were altered to pass them by examiners who were known to them.Therefore, the petitioner-doctors are seeking an interim order restraining the PGIM from allowing the same Board of Study and Panel of Examiners from conducting a fresh examination.

While also seeking an order appointing a new Board of Study excluding members involved in the earlier examination, they are also requesting an order preventing the release of the earlier results until the final determination of the application.

The petitioners are Dr. D.L.S. Munasinghe, Dr. K.H.D. Milroy, Dr. D.J.H. Gunasekara, Dr. W.G.P. Gunawardhana, Dr. C.M.A. Anthony, Dr. M.U.K. Galhena and Dr. M.G.T. Fernando.

Among the 222 respondents cited are the PGIM Board of Management, the Board of Study in Family Medicine and the two doctors whose marks were allegedly changed to achieve the pass mark.

The petition was filed by Attorney-at-Law G.G. Arulpragasam.