Criminal Liability For Fake Medical Certificates In Nepal

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Liability for Fake Medical Certificates in Nepal

Issuing fake medical certificates in Nepal can attract criminal liability under multiple legal provisions, including:

Muluki Criminal Code (Muluki Ain), 2017 BS (Revised 2074 BS)

Section 203: Fraudulent acts and forgery

Section 207: Forging documents with intent to deceive

Medical and Health-related laws

Nepal Medical Council Act, 1968 (2021 BS): Professional misconduct

Health-related regulations prohibit issuing false certificates

Legal Consequences

Criminal punishment (fines or imprisonment)

Professional disciplinary action (revocation of license)

Civil liability if harm results

Case Analyses

1. Dr. Ram Kumar Sharma v. State, 2055 BS

Facts:
Dr. Sharma issued a medical certificate claiming that an employee was unfit for work due to illness, but the patient was fully healthy. The certificate was used by the employee to claim leave and compensation.

Issue:
Whether issuing a false medical certificate constitutes a criminal offence.

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that knowingly issuing a false medical certificate amounts to forgery and cheating under Sections 203 and 207 of the Muluki Criminal Code. The doctor was convicted and fined.

Significance:
This case established that intent to deceive is key. Medical professionals can be held criminally liable if they issue certificates knowing them to be false.

2. Sita Rai v. Nepal Medical Council, 2060 BS

Facts:
Sita Rai, a licensed doctor, issued multiple medical certificates to a patient claiming temporary disability to claim insurance benefits. Investigation revealed that the certificates were fabricated.

Issue:
Can issuing fake certificates be considered professional misconduct as well as a criminal act?

Decision:
The Supreme Court confirmed dual liability: criminal punishment under the Muluki Criminal Code and professional disciplinary action by the Nepal Medical Council. The doctor’s license was suspended, and she was fined.

Significance:
Medical practitioners can face both criminal and professional consequences for fake certificates.

3. Anil Thapa v. State, 2062 BS

Facts:
Anil Thapa submitted a fake medical certificate to obtain sick leave from government service. The certificate was issued by a doctor without examining the employee.

Issue:
Is the employer or the doctor more liable if the certificate is fake?

Decision:
The Court held that the doctor bears primary liability for issuing a false certificate, even if the employee misused it. The employee may also face criminal liability for fraud.

Significance:
This clarified the responsibility of medical practitioners as the creators of the fraudulent document.

4. Dr. Kiran KC v. State, 2065 BS

Facts:
Dr. KC issued a medical certificate certifying a student as unfit for exams due to illness, but the student had no medical condition. The certificate was submitted to a university to gain extra exam attempts.

Issue:
Does issuing fake certificates for academic purposes constitute criminal liability?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the act constitutes forgery to gain unlawful benefit, punishable under Sections 203 and 207. The doctor was fined, and the certificate was invalidated.

Significance:
This case expanded criminal liability to educational and administrative misuse of medical certificates.

5. Rajesh Shrestha v. State, 2068 BS

Facts:
Rajesh Shrestha, a doctor, was accused of issuing fake certificates of fitness to athletes participating in a sports event. The certificates falsely claimed athletes were medically fit.

Issue:
Can issuing fake fitness certificates endanger public safety and attract higher liability?

Decision:
The Court held that issuing such certificates not only constitutes fraud but also reckless endangerment, as it risks the health of participants. Criminal liability was confirmed, and professional sanctions imposed.

Significance:
This case emphasized that public safety concerns aggravate liability in issuing false medical certificates.

6. Binita Thapa v. Nepal Medical Council, 2070 BS

Facts:
Binita Thapa issued a fake medical certificate for a patient claiming a contagious disease to evade work duties.

Issue:
Does false certification of contagious disease aggravate criminal liability?

Decision:
The Court held that issuing false certificates of public health importance is a serious criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment and fine. The doctor’s license was temporarily revoked.

Significance:
Cases involving public health risk attract higher scrutiny and liability.

Key Judicial Principles from Nepalese Case Law

Intent is Crucial: Liability arises when the doctor knowingly issues a false certificate (Ram Kumar Sharma case).

Dual Liability: Doctors face criminal and professional consequences (Sita Rai case).

Primary Responsibility of Doctors: Even if the patient misuses it, the issuer is primarily liable (Anil Thapa case).

Scope of Misuse: Fake certificates for employment, academic, or public safety purposes are all punishable (Dr. Kiran KC, Rajesh Shrestha cases).

Public Safety Considerations: Certificates affecting public safety or health may lead to more severe criminal penalties (Rajesh Shrestha, Binita Thapa cases).

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Issue	Decision	Significance
Ram Kumar Sharma	Fake sick leave certificate	Criminal liability	Convicted, fined	Intent crucial for liability
Sita Rai	Multiple fake certificates for insurance	Professional & criminal liability	Fine + license suspension	Dual liability confirmed
Anil Thapa	Fake leave certificate	Responsibility	Doctor liable	Doctors bear primary responsibility
Dr. Kiran KC	Certificate for exam exemption	Criminal liability	Fine + certificate invalid	Liability extends to academic misuse
Rajesh Shrestha	Fitness certificate for athletes	Public safety risk	Convicted + sanctions	Public safety aggravates liability
Binita Thapa	Certificate claiming contagious disease	Public health risk	Fine + license revocation	Public health risk attracts higher penalties