MANISH KUMAR PANDIT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.4 in exercise of power under Section 41(1) of the Dentists Act, 1948 is without jurisdiction as it has suspended the registration of the petitioner from 18.03.2021 to 18.03.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order suspending the petitioner's practice is not embodied in section 41 of The Dentists Act, 1948 which speaks only about removal from register and such removal will not include the suspension. It is further contended that on the basis of secret information, certain enquiries were conducted wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has provided the treatment by wrongly applying fixed ortho dontic appliances over 280 children of different villages and in the said enquiry proper facts were not ascertained. He would submit that according to the scheme of Government, the implementation agency was the State Government and after approval of the patient to undergo the treatment, the treatment is carried out. Thereafter, after treatment, his photograph is uploaded. He submits that this due procedure was followed by the petitioner, consequently it cannot be said that the petitioner has wrongly administered the medical treatment to the children. He would further submit that initially the notice was given to the petitioner which was replied by him and thereafter, without further giving any opportunity of hearing, the said orders have been passed suspending the petitioner's practice for one year. He would submit that the provisions which has been reflected in the order dated 18.03.2021 will also not include the nature of treatment provided and would not fall beyond the professional ethics performed by the Doctor and the professional ethics are notified and codified by the Dental Council. Therefore the order dated 18.03.2021 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

(2.) Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that Section 41 of The Dentist Act, 1948 speaks about the removal from register and the removal of registration in this case was made for a specific period from 18.03.2021 to 18.03.2022. It is further submitted that the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner was enquired and the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and thereafter the orders were passed. He would further submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed u/s 41(1) of the Act, 1948 he has statutory remedy to file appeal before the State Government.

(3.) Perused the documents. It was alleged that as many as 1400 children of 6 villages were treated by placing wire on teeth and part of such treatment was carried out by this petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that in order to get the advantage of government scheme, the petitioner used the scheme of fixed orthodontic appliances over 281 children of different villages. The document also purports that apart from the petitioner from whom some children were treated, other children had also underwent such treatment by other doctors. The document (Annexure P8) prima facie would show that the petitioner was given a notice which was replied by him and the details of treatment provided by the Doctor were furnished. Therefore, providing the nature of treatment to number of children is not in dispute. The question comes for consideration here is that whether such treatment is required to the children and the petitioner went beyond the professional ethics and in order to avail the financial benefit had given such treatment to the children. This logical aspect of treatment of the children by placing wire on teeth in large number comes to fore as to whether such treatment was required or not. The State conducted the enquiry and came to a conclusion that the nature of treatment which was given was not befitting to the professional ethics. The necessity/requirement of children for such treatment and want of desire of doctor to treat has not been matched by result of enquiry by State. So need and want should ethically match each other. Consequently in exercise of power under section 41, the order of removal of petitioner restraining from practice for one year has been passed.