“Ghost pathologists” and unauthorised report signings: a growing patient-safety concern in Maharashtra
The Maharashtra State Assembly recently focused attention on what legislators and medical professionals are calling the practice of “ghost pathologists” and the unauthorised signing of pathology reports. Lawmakers and representatives of practicing pathologists warned that laboratory technicians and other non-qualified staff are reportedly signing test reports in place of credentialled pathologists, raising serious questions about diagnostic credibility and patient safety across both urban and rural areas of the state.
The issue touches on regulatory compliance, medico-legal responsibility and public trust in laboratory diagnostics. Elected officials urged the state government to examine whether existing statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 are being applied effectively, and whether additional oversight or legislation is required.
What was raised in the Assembly
Shiv Sena MLA Manisha Kayande brought the matter to the Assembly floor, describing instances where pathology reports appear to be issued “under questionable circumstances” in multiple laboratories. She emphasised that, under accepted medical practice, only an MD in Pathology is authorised to sign pathology reports. Yet, she said, many reports are being signed by laboratory technicians or other staff, sometimes using digital signatures purportedly on behalf of pathologists.
Kayande pressed the government to consider initiating action under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, on the same basis as actions taken against bogus medical practitioners. Her remarks highlighted both regulatory and patient-safety implications, and called for swift clarity from the state on enforcement options.
Concerns flagged by the pathology community
medichelpline had earlier reported that concerns were raised by the Maharashtra Association of Practicing Pathologists and Microbiologists (MAPPM). The association has alleged that some diagnostic laboratories are operating under the names of pathologists who are no longer alive, and in other cases are using pathologists’ names without providing their registration numbers—practices that compromise transparency and accountability.
Dr Sandip Yadav, president of MAPPM, told the Assembly that existing law already permits action against bogus pathologists. He stated that FIRs have been registered and action has been triggered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. Dr Yadav also accused the government of delaying meaningful enforcement for up to two decades, suggesting that the delay may have allowed technicians operating outside authorised scopes to persist.
Why the problem has widened: lab growth and digital signatures
MLA Kayande and representatives from the pathology community pointed to the rapid expansion of pathology laboratories across Maharashtra as a key factor that has sharpened the problem. As diagnostic services proliferate into smaller towns and rural areas, oversight and verification of credentials have become more challenging. In some reported instances, laboratory staff are digitally signing reports on behalf of pathologists, creating a mechanism by which reports can be issued without direct supervision by a trained, registered pathologist.
Experts and legislators emphasize that when authorised signatories are absent or misrepresented, the chain of responsibility for diagnostic interpretation becomes unclear. That ambiguity can undermine confidence in test results, delay appropriate clinical decisions and expose patients to avoidable harm.
Government response and proposed next steps
Responding in the Assembly, Maharashtra Health Minister Prakash Abitkar acknowledged uncertainty around certain aspects of the issue and committed to convening a meeting with stakeholders to examine the matter. The minister indicated the government would study the evidence and consider whether legislative measures or strengthened regulatory guidance are necessary to close gaps in oversight.
This proposed stakeholder consultation is intended to bring together medical regulatory authorities, practicing pathologists’ associations, laboratory operators and legal experts to assess enforcement options and practical safeguards. The outcome could range from clearer enforcement of existing law to targeted regulatory changes intended to improve transparency and accountability in diagnostic reporting.
Legal and patient-safety implications
At the core of the debate is a straightforward principle of medical practice: diagnostic reports should be validated and signed by appropriately trained and registered professionals who can be held accountable for their interpretations. When that principle is breached—whether by using the names of deceased pathologists, omitting registration details, or having technicians sign reports—the integrity of laboratory testing and the safety of patients who rely on those tests are compromised.
Calls in the Assembly to apply the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 in these cases reflect a desire to align enforcement against unauthorised practice with established action taken against bogus medical practitioners. MAPPM’s statements that FIRs have been registered demonstrate that criminal or regulatory processes have been initiated in some instances, but the association’s leadership stresses that enforcement must be consistent and timely.
What stakeholders are asking for
Stakeholders including legislators and MAPPM are asking for:
– Clear enforcement of the requirement that only credentialled MD pathologists sign pathology reports.
– Transparency measures such as the consistent display of pathologist registration numbers on laboratory reports.
– Prompt investigation and appropriate action under existing law where individuals or laboratories are found to be falsifying signatures or misrepresenting professional credentials.
– A stakeholder-driven review to determine whether current regulations and oversight mechanisms are sufficient, or whether legislative changes are needed.
Conclusion: restoring trust through timely action
The Assembly debate has brought sustained attention to practices that, according to elected representatives and practising pathologists, have eroded public confidence in diagnostic testing. With the Health Minister committing to a stakeholder meeting and MAPPM reporting that FIRs and actions under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 have already been initiated in some cases, the next steps will be critical to restoring trust.
Reform advocates stress that timely, transparent enforcement—and, where necessary, targeted regulatory reform—are essential to protect patients and preserve the integrity of diagnostic medicine. medichelpline will continue to follow developments as stakeholders and the government engage on this complex public-health and regulatory issue.