Archive for category: News

New Delhi: The most anticipated National Eligibility-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) examination, which is the gateway for MBBS admission in the country, was held on May 4, 2025, and more than 22.7 lakh candidates appeared in the entrance test at 5,453 centers across the country.

A majority of the aspirants who appeared in the exam on Sunday described the paper as moderately difficult. Subject-wise, the physics section was considered tough by the students, there were a few tricky questions in the chemistry portion and even though the biology section was relatively easy, it was time-consuming, The New Indian Express has reported.

Considering the difficulty level of the question paper, especially in comparison to the question papers of previous years, the students and coaching centres are expecting the cut-off marks to drop, at least marginally.

Also Read: NEET 2023 held for over 20 lakh candidates, Easy to Moderate level of difficulty in question paper

Reportedly, this year’s NEET exam turned out to be one of the toughest editions yet. This is not just due to the difficulty level in the question paper, but also because of the shift in question pattern and paper structure, India Today has reported.

Deviating from the usual pattern of 24 paper sets, NEET 2025 consisted of only four sets of questions. As per the latest media report by India Today, all these sets were designed with a consistently tough and concept-heavy format. Since the questions focused more on application-based learning, it pushed students to think deeply, rather than just recall the facts.

NEET UG 2025 aspirants had to answer 180 questions of altogether 720 marks. As per the exam pattern, they will get 4 marks for each correct answer and -1 for every wrong one. However, this time, all the questions were made compulsory and Biology was not split into Botany and Zoology. Therefore, the aspirants found it harder to compartmentalise the preparation. India Today has reported that many students struggled to finish the paper within 3 hours, mainly due to the Physics portion, which required much more work than usual. Even though the Biology section consisted of questions mainly from the NCERT syllabus, it still leaned heavily towards conceptual understanding rather than factual recall.

Subject-wise paper analysis:

A subject-wise analysis of the NEET 2025 question paper, compiled by the National Academic Director (Medical) of Aakash Educational Services Limited (AESL) reflected that overall the question paper was difficult.

The physics section was highly challenging for the aspirants. The paper emphasised on Class 11 syllabus and the questions were lengthy in nature and they required extensive calculations. The paper did not include statement-based, assertion-reason, or match-the-column questions. Most of the questions were from Mechanics and they were challenging in nature.

In the Chemistry portion, the difficulty level was medium to difficult and the main focus was on Organic and Physical chemistry. Unlike Physics, the Chemistry portion focused more on Class 12 syllabus and most of the questions required conceptual and analytical understanding. Even though there were plenty of statement-based and matrix-match based questions and one assertion-reason-based question, some of the questions were based on multiple concepts. When compared to last year, this year, the Chemistry portion was more time-consuming for the aspirants.

Several students and experts noted that the physics section was as tough as, or even tougher than the 2019 NEET paper, which was regarded as one of the most difficult paper in recent years.

Commenting on the matter, a career guidance expert Jayaprakash Gandhi told TNIE, “Students will still need to score above 650 out of 720 to secure admission in a top medical college, even though cut-offs may drop slightly.” He further added that while students who appeared in the exam for the first time are expected to struggle more, those who are repeaters might perform better.

Hindustan Times has reported that students in Chandigarh found the physics portion of the NEET 2025 paper challenging to attempt. A student, who appeared for NEET 2-35 at Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 19, informed HT that the physics questions were lengthy and even evoked anxiety. Another student also found the physics portion challenging and said that he could satisfactorily answer the Biology questions as they were mostly based on the NCERT textbook.

Meanwhile, commenting on the matter, the owner of a city-based coaching centre for NEET students said that last year’s physics portion was mostly from the NCERT textbook. However, this time, some of the questions were of JEE Main and even JEE Advanced difficulty level. He further added that the cut-off is expected to be lowered this year, and the physics portion will be the deciding factor as both the Chemistry and Biology papers were mostly NCERT-based.

Also Read: NEET 2024 analysis: Difficulty level ‘moderate’

Jodhpur: Observing that when dealing with young professionals-in-training, the courts must rise above the rigid arithmetical calculations and insistence on income proof, the Rajasthan High Court recently awarded Rs 1,07,13,500 to the family of an MBBS student, who died in a motor accident.

Earlier in the case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, had awarded Rs 12,52,429 as compensation to the family. Finding the amount inadequate, the deceased medico’s parents sought enhancement of the compensation and approached the High Court.

Allowing the appeal of the grieving couple, who lost their 20-year-old son and was a promising MBBS student and a potential future doctor, the HC bench comprising Justice Arun Monga ordered,

“I am of the considered opinion that in cases of the nature, as the one in hand, when dealing with young professionals-intraining, courts must rise above the rigid arithmetical calculations and insistence of income proof. A purely mathematical or minimum-wage-based approach risks devaluing education, aspiration, and merit — which are highly valued and zealously protected by the law. Apart therefrom, realistic compensation not only ensures restorative justice for the bereaved family but also serves as a deterrent to negligent driving, reinforcing accountability in road safety.”

The history of the case goes back to 2019 when the MBBS student was travelling in a car from Jodhpur to Udaipur, along with his friends. When the vehicle reached near Bhairunath Dhaba, its driver (son of the first respondent), due to rash and negligent driving, hit a motorcycle. As a result, the car driver lost control and collided with a road divider, leading to injuries from iron angles installed along the divider.

Resultantly, the son (MBBS medico) of the appellants (parents) sustained grievous injuries in the accident and, despite medical efforts, succumbed to his injuries. All the parties to the claim petition actively participated in the proceedings, and the Tribunal awarded a total of Rs 12,52,429 as compensation to the appellants. However, finding the compensation amount inadequate, the appellants approached the HC bench.

The counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the deceased’s income by merely applying the standard of minimum wage of a skilled worker without any realistic and reasonable estimation or guesswork. This approach ignored the deceased’s academic background and future earning potential, argued the Counsel.

He further submitted that the deceased was a second-year MBBS student at Sampoornanand Medical College, Jodhpur, and secured admission through the highly competitive NEET examination. Therefore, the counsel argued that the deceased’s academic excellence and career prospects demonstrated a potential for significantly higher earnings than those of an unskilled labourer, a factor that the Tribunal had failed to acknowledge. 

It was also submitted that the Tribunal had overlooked the socio-economic status of the claimants and did not award reasonable amounts under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Further, the Tribunal applied an incorrect multiplier and made improper deductions, thereby underestimating the compensation.

While the appellants prayed for an increased amount of compensation, on the other hand, the Insurance Company argued that the deceased was only a medical student at the time of his death and at that time he did not have any income, rather he was a liability on his family since the family had to spend money on his education.

The HC bench, while considering the matter, perused the Tribunal’s order and opined that “the learned Tribunal’s approach has been wholly unrealistic, unduly pedantic, hypertechnical and very narrow leading to the too low assessment of the income potential of the deceased.”

It also observed that the Tribunal awarded Rs 12,52,429 based on the minimum wage for a skilled worker (Rs 7,774 per month), even though the deceased, was a second-year MBBS student, who cleared the NEET exam, one of India’s toughest competitive exams.

Opining that the Courts must rise above rigid arithmetical calculations and insistence of income proof, the HC bench further observed,

“In present case, there has been wholly unrealistic and unduly low assessment of income of the victim of accident as that of a skilled worker, totally ignoring the earning potential of a future doctor — a respected and remunerative profession. This, in my opinion, is/ was a grave error and gross underestimation of the income potential of the accident victim.”

“It is common knowledge that on completion professional courses like MBBS or engineering, such students have the potential to earn far above and multiple times of the minimum wage of a skilled worker. The Tribunal rejected the claim of income of ₹25,000/- per month tuition earnings due to lack of documentary proof. However, it failed to make a realistic assessment and apply judicial mind to the deceased’s academic trajectory while assessing his potential future earnings. Thus, the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in law by applying a rigid and overly conservative formula for assessment of notional income to a case where the deceased’s future earnings and familial contribution were clearly poised for excellence. A corrective and compassionate course is warranted in the case in hand,” it further noted.

Relying on a previous judgment in the case of Bishnupriya Panda Vs. BasantiManjari Mohanty &Anr., the HC bench noted, “In present case, the accident took place on 06.02.2019. At that time, the deceased was 21 years and 8 months old and was a second-year MBBS student at Sardar Patel Medical College, Jodhpur. Taking cue from the view taken by the Apex Court in Bishnupriya Panda supra and allowing for overall general trend of increase in the income with passage of time from 2013 to 2019, I am of the opinion that it would be fair and reasonable to assess the income potential of the Sunil Bishnoi deceased at the time of his death in 2019 as Rs. 70,000/- per month.”

Adding 40% of the same towards future prospects, the Court calculated the deceased’s notional income as Rs 98,000. “By deducting it’s 50% i.e. Rs.49,000/- towards self expenses, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.49,000/- on which compensation ought to be calculated and awarded. Applying the multiplier of 18 (as also applied by the learned Tribunal), the compensation for the death of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,05,84,000/-“ it further observed and it also increased the compensation awarded under the head of “loss of love and affectiuon/consortium” from Rs 44,000 to Rs 88,000 for both the parents.

Ultimately, the Court calculated the total amount of compensation as Rs 1,07,13,500 and ordered, “The enhanced amount of compensation with interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of compensation application (02.07.2019) before the learned Tribunal shall be paid to appellants No. 1 and 2 in equal shares initially by respondent No. 2 (insurance company), who may, thereafter, take appropriate proceedings against respondent No.1 for it’s recovery, if so advised and found otherwise admissible.”

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-285616.pdf

Also Read: 5 MBBS Students killed in Car Crash in Andhra’s Nellore

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought a response from the National Medical Commission (NMC), Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, MP DME, and MIMS Medical College and Hospital on a plea seeking stipend for Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs) during their internship. 

Filing the plea, the medical graduates from abroad, who are currently undergoing internship at Mahaveer Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, challenged the non-payment of stipend.

Issuing notices to NMC, MPMC, DME, Directorate of Health Services (DHS) and MIMS Medical College, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran listed the matter for further hearing on 28.07.2025.

The plea has been filed by a group of four FMGs through Advocate on Record Tanvi Dubey and it argues that non-payment of stipends violates their fundamental rights under the constitution.

Further, it has been argued that while FMGs and Indian Medical Graduates (IMGs) are working similar duty hours, the medical graduates from abroad are being arbitrarily denied their rightful stipends.

Also Read: Supreme Court to Decide on Stipend for FMG Internship, Notice Issued

As per the latest media report Lawbeat, referring to Clause 3 (Schedule IV) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021, the plea argued that the said provisions mandated that all interns must be paid a stipend, as fixed by the appropriate authority applicable to the institute.

The plea also highlighted the financial struggles faced by the FMGs and added, “Incurring all the expenses including food, accommodation, travel, and miscellaneous expenses on their own account without any stipend whatsoever. This is a catch-22 situation for them since they have no other option but to continue their internship on their own expenses.”

It also pointed out that many of these interns took education loans to pursue their medical studies and stated that the interns now face great difficulty in meeting both educational and day-to-day expenses. It also noted that several interns are posted outside their home states, which is further adding to their financial burden.

Citing the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Abhishek Yadav & Ors. Vs. Army Medical College & Ors, the plea pointed out that the Apex Court had allowed the payment of stipends to the interns pursuing their compulsory one-year internship.

It emphasized that the FMGs have already spent 4-6 years of their lives on medical education and now after returning back to their home countries, such administrative hurdles are hampering their motivation and making their qualifications of no use.

Accordingly, the petitioners have sought directions from the concerned authorities to provide a regular monthly stipend for the entire period of the internship with retrospective effect and it also prayed for a direction to NMC to instruct other authorities to determine the stipend payable to the petitioners for the entire internship period, as per the standards followed by other medical colleges.