- Home
- MedBound Hub
- InternshipInternship
- BiographyBiography
- InterviewInterview
- Medicine
- Pharmacy
- Physical Therapy
- Biotechnology
- College/InstituteCollege/Institute
- Dentistry
- Blog
- Wellness & Nutrition
- Nursing
- Opinion
- Videos
The Bombay High Court is currently addressing a legal conflict between dermatologists and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (OMS) over the qualifications needed to perform hair transplant and aesthetic surgeries. Both sides have presented arguments, making this a highly contentious issue within the medical fraternity.
The Dynamic Dermatologist and Hair Transplant Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) claiming that OMS professionals lack the necessary training to perform hair transplant surgeries. They argued that these procedures fall under dermatology's domain and criticized the Dental Council of India’s (DCI) guidelines allowing OMS to perform such surgeries.
The counsel representing the dermatologists stated that OMS practitioners, being dentists, are neither trained nor qualified to perform hair transplants, citing risks to patients and professional overreach by OMS practitioners.
In response, the Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India (AOMSI) filed an intervention application asserting their right to perform hair transplant surgeries. They highlighted that OMS training involves more complex surgical procedures compared to hair transplants, which they described as superficial and scalp oriented.
AOMSI argued that restricting OMS from performing such procedures would be a disservice to their expertise and suggested that the move was motivated by a desire to monopolize the field.
The controversy centers on the DCI guidelines issued in December 2022, which permit OMS professionals to perform aesthetic and hair transplant procedures following adequate training. These guidelines also mandate essential safety protocols, including preoperative medical clearances, post-operative care facilities, and appropriate resuscitation equipment.
Dermatologists, however, have challenged these guidelines, claiming they compromise patient safety and seeking their withdrawal.
AOMSI cited prior endorsements from the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), which supported OMS competency for hair transplants. Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked that MCI, as a statutory body of medical professionals, was better positioned to determine OMS qualifications. He noted that if the MCI considered OMS practitioners competent for such procedures, it was not the court's place to question this.
The case has sparked debates within the medical community regarding interdisciplinary boundaries. AOMSI highlighted their curriculum, which includes surgeries on the jaw, cranio-maxillofacial region, and temporomandibular joints, showcasing their comprehensive training.
Their argument underscored that hair transplants are less complex and well within the scope of their surgical expertise. They further emphasized that the DCI guidelines do not extend to general dentists or other dental specialists, addressing a key concern raised by dermatologists.
As the Bombay High Court deliberates, the outcome of this legal battle will significantly impact both OMS and dermatology practices. It will also set a precedent for defining the scope of practice in overlapping medical and dental disciplines.
The hearing continues as both sides await a decision that could reshape professional boundaries in healthcare.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Dr. Sreelekshmi P/MSM)
