RAJ BOKARIA Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 20412/2010 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 3 rd November 2010 passed by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India (,,MCI) allowing an appeal filed by Mr. Atanu Dutta, Respondent No. 2 herein, and directing that the Petitioner should be punished by removing her name from the Indian Medical Register for three months with effect from 1st November 2010 to 31st January 2011.

(2.) THE wife of Respondent No. 2, late Dr. Roopa Dutta, a gynaecologist and obstetrician herself, was being treated at the Moolchand Kheratiram Hospital, Respondent No. 3 herein, by a team of four doctors headed by the Petitioner during her second pregnancy in 2003. An ultrasound carried out after 20 weeks of pregnancy revealed that the foetus had a single umbilical artery. Amniocentesis done in Ganga Ram Hospital revealed that the chromosome count in the foetus was abnormal being 22. It is stated by the Petitioner that late Dr. Roopa Dutta was also a known patient of asthma and could not accept the thought of delivery of an abnormal child. It is stated that she suffered from extreme mental stress and aggravated asthma and her condition became precarious. THE Petitioner states that in light of the above complication, "the issue was discussed with Respondent No. 2 and his late wife....she and her husband therefore took a conscious decision to discontinue the pregnancy in order to protect the life of late Dr. (Mrs.) Roopa Dutta." It is claimed in the petition that this decision to discontinue pregnancy was "a normal and accepted medical practice" and a certificate dated 26th June 2004 issued by the East Delhi Gynecologist Forum is enclosed in support of such submissions. However, the records showing that a consultation was held by the Petitioner with the deceased and her husband, and that an opinion was formed by the Petitioner to terminate the pregnancy is not placed on record. It is the admitted position that there is no such record maintained in the present case.

(3.) MS Maninder Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner urged that a reading of the order of the Ethics Committee would show that although they had requisitioned the opinion of an expert doctor, Alka Kriplani, the Ethics Committee in fact found that the opinion given by Dr. Kriplani was neutral, non-committal and therefore unhelpful. The Ethics Committee decided to refer the matter back to Dr. Kriplani for giving an unambiguous opinion. Yet, they proceeded to decide the appeal and awarded punishment to the Petitioner without receiving the expert opinion. Secondly, it is submitted that a reading of the impugned order would show that it primarily turned upon the fact that induced pre-term labour was contrary to the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (,,MTP Act) against the carrying out of such procedure at an advanced stage of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks. It is submitted that in doing so the Ethics Committee overlooked Section 5 of the MTP Act which permitted such procedure to be adopted provided an opinion was formed that it was necessary to save the life of the patient. Thirdly, it is submitted that an unusual procedure was adopted by the Ethics Committee of the MCI to investigate the complaint de novo and record the statements of the doctors concerned. Also, copies of these statements which were recorded in the absence of the Petitioner were not given to her. No opportunity to cross- examine the said doctors was given. It is submitted that in these circumstances the impugned order ought to be set aside and the case remanded for a further decision by the MCI.