Maharashtra Medical Crisis: A Rare Case Of Doctor Vs Doctor

Back in 2014, through an amendment, the Maharashtra government merged two ‘pathys’ in ways that were unfounded. The impact is being felt now, as the first of the homoeopathic practitioners was registered with the state’s allopathic Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) last week.

The issue has been simmering, with the MMC and evidence-based medical practitioners resisting this back-door entry of those who have been through neither the same system of treatment as they have nor a similar rigour of medical education.

Doctors went on strike to drive home their point; the Bombay High Court intervened to make them withdraw it. While the immediate heat may be off, the discontent is likely to take other unpleasant forms, both within Maharashtra, where doctor-vs-doctor battles could ensue, and in the rest of the country, where states might emulate the Maharashtra model.

Why Doctors Are Objecting

Allopathic doctors, indeed, have a strong argument for keeping the two systems separate and allowing patients to choose the one best suited to them or to the medical condition they are battling. Do not mix the distinctly different systems of allopathy and homoeopathy to needlessly create a ‘mixopathy’ or ‘crosspathy’, they say.

While basic courses to learn about the human system are similar—anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and so on—the two systems differ greatly in treatments, evidence, and pathways to healing. In fact, there lies a key difference in their approach to a medical condition.

Allopathy relies on evidence-based pharmacology to treat symptoms and conditions in patients; homoeopathy follows the law of similars, among other principles.

The government’s justification at the time—that homoeopathic practitioners can register with the MMC only after completing the bridge course, Certificate Course in Modern Pharmacology—erases the core difference between the two systems of medicine.

This is not a debate between two systems of treatment; it is about allowing practitioners trained in one to use the methods of the other. This has no rational basis. A few homoeopathic practitioners, including office-bearers of the National Commission for Homoeopathy, have expressed grave reservations too.

Risks For Patients

The implications and pitfalls of this range from risking patients’ well-being to grievance redressal—do wronged patients approach the MMC or the offices of the NHC?—and filing medical insurance claims. Typically, the horse has been allowed into the stable with no plans to rein it back.

The government amended the Maharashtra Medical Commission Act on the grounds that there were not enough doctors in rural areas and positions were being filled by homoeopathic and other practitioners who found it illegal to prescribe even basic allopathic medicines. The situation has since improved.

Legal Battle Continues

The Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (MARD) had taken the issue to the High Court but could not secure a stay, which paved the way for the first registration. The last word is yet to be heard; at stake are clarity and the rights of patients.

Published on: Wednesday, August 12, 2026, 10:11 PM IST