Doctors’ associations, particularly the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the IAPMR, have repeatedly opposed the use of “Dr.” by physiotherapists, arguing that such usage blurs the line between medical practitioners and allied health professionals.
Published Sep 10, 2025 | 9:32 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 10, 2025 | 11:24 PM
Physiotherapists. (Representative image/ iStock)
Synopsis: The directive and its swift withdrawal marks the latest round in a long-running battle over professional titles. Doctors’ associations, particularly the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the IAPMR, have repeatedly opposed the use of “Dr.” by physiotherapists, arguing that such usage blurs the line between medical practitioners and allied health professionals.
The Union Health Ministry’s Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) has withdrawn its communication barring physiotherapists from using the prefix “Dr.” in India, just a day after issuing the directive.
In a letter dated 10 September 2025, Prof (Dr) Sunita Sharma, DGHS, stated that following representations received on the matter, further examination and deliberation are required.
The previous D.O. letter, issued on 9 September 2025, had warned that physiotherapists using the title “Dr.” could mislead patients and violate legal provisions.
The previous D.O. letter, issued on 9 September, is now treated as withdrawn until further notice.
The DGHS had clarified that only registered medical practitioners of modern medicine, Ayurveda, Homoeopathy and Unani are legally entitled to use the prefix.
The directive followed objections from medical associations, including the Indian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (IAPMR), and cited court rulings and advisories that prohibited physiotherapists from identifying themselves as doctors.
It is now treated as withdrawn until further notice.
In the previous directive, the Directorate noted that the controversy stemmed from the Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy – Approved Syllabus 2025, published by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) under the Health Ministry.
The syllabus had recommended that physiotherapists can be addressed with the prefix “Dr.” along with the suffix “PT.”
The IAPMR strongly objected to this, arguing that physiotherapists are not trained as medical doctors and should not be permitted to use the title.
The association warned that the usage could mislead patients and the public, potentially leading to quackery. It also stressed that physiotherapists are not equipped to diagnose or treat primary medical conditions and should only handle referred cases, as inappropriate interventions could worsen health problems.
The DGHS, in the previous directive, pointed out that the recommendation was contrary to existing rulings. Among the judgements cited were:
The ministry, in the previous directive, recalled that the Ethics Committee of the Council (under the Paramedical and Physiotherapy Central Council Bill, 2007) had already decided that the title “Dr.” may only be used by registered medical practitioners of recognised systems of medicine.
Nursing staff and paramedical professionals, including physiotherapists, were explicitly excluded.
Citing a 2004 legal opinion, the DGHS reiterated that physiotherapists using the title without holding a recognised medical qualification would be in violation of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916, which attracts penal action under Sections 6 and 7. It underscored that physiotherapists are “not entitled to use the prefix ‘Dr.’ under any circumstances whatsoever.”
In light of these concerns, the DGHS directed that the contentious provision in the 2025 syllabus be withdrawn immediately.
It also suggested that a more “appropriate and respectful title” be considered for graduates and postgraduates of physiotherapy, provided it avoids confusion among patients or the public.
The directive and its swift withdrawal marks the latest round in a long-running battle over professional titles.
Doctors’ associations, particularly the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the IAPMR, have repeatedly opposed the use of “Dr.” by physiotherapists, arguing that such usage blurs the line between medical practitioners and allied health professionals.
On the other side, physiotherapy associations have for years pressed their demand for formal recognition as doctors, citing the depth of their academic training, especially at the postgraduate level. The Health Ministry’s intervention is therefore likely to be seen as a setback by these groups.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
