The National Medical Commission (NMC), established to oversee and regulate the medical profession in the public interest, has completed five years of operation. However, during this period, it has faced mounting criticism for not entertaining any patient appeals, despite its mandate to address grievances related to medical ethics and professional conduct. While the commission was expected to provide a transparent mechanism for patients to seek redressal, all complaints filed so far have reportedly been rejected. This has sparked debate over whether the system is adequately serving those it was designed to protect.

Mandate of the National Medical Commission

The NMC was created with the objective of reforming medical education and ensuring ethical standards within the healthcare sector. It replaced earlier regulatory structures with the promise of greater accountability and efficiency. A key part of its mission was to safeguard public interest by addressing complaints against medical practitioners and institutions. However, critics argue that this vision has not translated into practice when it comes to patient grievances. The absence of a functioning appeal process has left many questioning whether the commission is fulfilling its role as an impartial regulator.

Patient Complaints and Rejections

Over its five-year existence, every patient complaint submitted to the NMC has been turned down. Observers note that this pattern undermines confidence in the commission’s ability to act as a fair adjudicator in cases involving alleged misconduct or negligence by medical professionals. For patients seeking justice, this lack of recourse has created frustration and disillusionment with the system. Critics emphasize that without a credible grievance redressal mechanism, public trust in regulatory oversight may erode further.

Proposed Amendment for Appeals

To address these concerns, a draft amendment had been introduced that would allow patients to file appeals before the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB). This proposal was seen as a step toward strengthening accountability by providing an independent forum for reviewing complaints dismissed at earlier stages. Despite its potential significance, progress on this amendment has stalled. The delay has left patients without an effective channel for appeal, prolonging uncertainty about when or if such reforms will be implemented.

Criticism Over Accountability

Healthcare experts and patient rights advocates have voiced concern over what they describe as a lack of transparency in how complaints are handled by the NMC. They argue that without an operational appeal mechanism, patients are effectively excluded from decisions that directly impact their rights and well-being. This criticism highlights broader questions about how regulatory bodies balance professional self-regulation with public accountability—an issue central to maintaining trust in healthcare governance structures.

The Road Ahead

As discussions around reform continue, many stakeholders stress the importance of implementing an appeals process that is accessible, fair, and transparent. Such measures could help restore confidence in the commission’s ability to regulate effectively while also protecting patient interests. Until then, however, concerns remain about whether the NMC can fully meet its mandate without providing patients with a meaningful avenue for redressal when disputes arise within the healthcare system.

The completion of five years marks an important milestone for the National Medical Commission, but it also underscores unresolved challenges regarding accountability and patient rights. The stalled amendment on appeals continues to be a focal point in debates about how best to ensure fairness within medical regulation going forward.