HARISHCHANDRA LAXMAN PATIL Vs. MAHARASHTRA MEDICAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE operative portion of the judgment is already pronounced in court. This judgment is being delivered by way of reasons in support thereof. In this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and propriety of the resolution dated 19.8.1988 passed by the Maharashtra Medical Council respondent no.1 (for short, 'the Council'), removing the name of the petitioner from the register of Medical Practitioners maintained under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') with effect from 19th August, 1988 for a period of six months.

(2.) FACTS relevant for decision of this petition may be briefly stated as under. The petitioner is a medical practitioner. He has passed his M.B.B.S. examination from Pune University in the year 1970 and he obtained diploma in Child Health in the year 1972. He completed M.D ( Paediatric ) in the year 1976. He has registered himself as medical practitioner with the Maharashtra Medical Council in the year 1970 and since then he started his medical practice at Jalgaon . The petitioner has his hospital named and styled as, ' Sanjeevani Hospital', which has the facility of consultancy as well as treatment for indoor patients.

(3.) AFTER receipt of the reply, the respondent no.1 decided to hold inquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, inquiry was held from 22nd July, 1988 to 24th July, 1988. The inquiry was conducted by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council. One Kasbekar acted as Judicial Assessor in the inquiry. The petitioner engaged his Counsel. The respondent no.3 also had engaged his counsel during the inquiry. During the inquiry, the respondent no.3 examined himself and his brother as his witness. The petitioner has also examined himself and adduced the evidence of Dr. A. N. Choudhary . The Executive Committee after considering the evidence produced during the inquiry found that the petitioner was negligent and showed carelessness in treating the child of respondent no.3 and as such the Executive Committee submitted its report. The members of the Executive Committee while giving findings against the petitioner found that the complainant's evidence i.e. the evidence of the respondent no.3 is more reliable and his allegations are true while medical practitioner's evidence is unworthy of reliance and the evidence of his witness is untrue. The members, therefore, have unanimously come to the conclusion that the allegations made against the medical practitioner are proved and hold the medical practitioner (petitioner) guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Council perused all the proceedings and agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Executive Committee and passed the impugned resolution directing the Registrar to remove the name of the petitioner from the register of the Council with effect from 19th August, 1988 for a period of six months.