MAJORITY REPORT.

insurance practitioners and on the present procedure for the
investigation of complaints against practitioners.

436. The procedure for dealing with complaints is described
in Appendix I, C, 40-56. The criticisms will be found in
Appendix XLVII, 35-43, Q. 15,213-15,220 and Appendix
XLVIII, 43 and 47, Q. 15,504-15,511, 15,519-15,627, 15,682
15,712, 15,715-15,728.

437. We refer particularly to the lengthy evidence which the
Medical Practitioners’ Union App. XLVIII, 43 and 47; Q.
15,504-15,511 and 15,519-15,627) submitted on the subject
of the complaints procedure. Much of this evidence is directed
to similar points to those put forward by the British Medical
Association, though in a more emphatic form. We deal with
the whole subject on its general bearings below. We would,
however, remark here that the privileged position, which the
Medical Practitioners’ Union urge should be granted to practitioners
 under the complaints procedure, is one which we do not
think could be conceded on any grounds of public policy; nor
do we think that the witnesses of the Union were able in oral
examination to sustain effectively the demands which they put
forward.

438. The witnesses appearing on behalf of the British Medical
Association classified the conditions of service of insurance
Practitioners in two categories—and we appreciate the importance
 of the distinction—namely, conditions affecting the professional
 relation between doctor and patient and conditions
relating to the fulfilment of the doctor's contractual obligation
to keep records and to perform other similar duties specified in
his agreement and the Terms of Service. (App. XI/VII, 40.)
As to the latter category, it is admitted that in cases where the
hon-fulfilment of the obligation is established, disciplinary action
1s justifiable and, indeed, inevitable, though certain changes are
advocated in the machinery of investigation. But it is
Suggested that questions affecting the relations of doctor
and patient should not be made the subject of disciplinary
Procedure, on the ground that, with the present unrestricted
choice of doctor, the patient has an effective remedy in his
own hands. This contention we find ourselves wholly unable
to accept, first, because we are not satisfied that the freedom
of choice of insured persons can be relied upon as sufficient to
Produce the requisite result, and secondly, because the entire
abrogation of the Minister's responsibility for the efficiency of
the service rendered by insurance practitioners to their insured
Patients is, in our view, inconsistent with the fulfilment ‘of the
duties placed on the Minister by the’ Health Insurance Act, and
With sound principles of administration of a publicly provided
Service. .

54709

(1