HERAT R PARMAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA MEDICAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of the respondent No. 1 Maharashtra Medical Council dated 21-3-1996 by which the Maharashtra Medical Council has accepted the opinion of its Executive Committee that the respondents-Doctors are not guilty of any negligence in discharge of their professional duties; in particular, in treating the petitioners father at Ashirwad Heart Hospital, Ghatkopar (East), Bombay.

(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Maharashtra Medical Council ought not to have accepted the recommendations of its Executive Committee that there is no prima facie case against the respondents-Doctors i. e. , respondents Nos. 2 to 5 without affording the opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before taking such a decision. The impugned decision of the Maharashtra Medical Council dated 21-3-1996 has been taken and communicated, admittedly without hearing her.

(3.) THE petitioners father, R. U. Parmar on 24-3-1993 while walking suddenly developed a weakness in both the limbs, started perspirating and had difficulty in speaking. He however reached home. Since he was a diabetic, the petitioner, who herself is a doctor, took him to Dr. Metalia who advised the petitioner to contact one, Dr. Panchal. Dr. Panchal suggested that the petitioners father might have a neurological problem and advised that he be admitted to the Ashirwad Heart Hospital, the respondent No. 6 herein and that he alongwith Dr. Bhaskar Shah, the respondent No. 3 herein, to take care of the patient being ICCU. According to the petitioner, her father was therefore admitted in the ICCU of Ashirwad Heart Hospital on 24-3-1993 at about 9. 00 p. m. Unfortunately, on 26-3-1993, the vital health parameters of petitioners father started deteriorating when, according to her, she repeatedly requested the doctors, in particular respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 to assess her fathers condition and give proper treatment. The petitioners case is that the Doctors did not do the needful and failed to detect primary cardio failure as a result of which, her father died.