L SUDHAKAR Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was aggrieved by Order No.MCI-211(2) (133)/2004-Ethics/ 8222, dated 16.7.2007, of the Medical Council of India by which the 1st respondent sought to impose a penalty of removal of the name of the writ petitioner from the Indian Medical Register for a period of three months. The petitioner contended that he is a medical graduate of 1996 from Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal and completed his Post Graduate Diploma in Anesthesiology from Osmania University in 2001. While describing his knowledge and experience in the field, the writ petitioner contended that on 5.3.2003 at about 11.50 p.m., he received information about the 3rd respondent's wife being admitted in Shalini Maternity Hospital and Dr. Rajesh Khanna who gave the message and the 3rd respondent were senior by one year to him and are his close friends. Immediately the writ petitioner provided analgesia services to the deceased wife of 3rd respondent, free of any charge, following all the formalities including taking of consent of patient and her husband. While he provided Epidural Analgesia to the patient, Dr. Malathi, a senior Gynaecologist assisted by Dr. Thejeswari, attended on the wife of the 3rd respondent who developed a rare complication Amniotic Fluid Embolism and did not survive inspite of the best efforts of the doctors. While the relatives of the deceased refused the suggestion to have a post-mortem examination, the 3rd respondent gave a complaint on 19.7.2003 after 41/2 months alleging negligence on the part of the doctors and after calling for explanations from all the doctors, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to its Ethical and Malpractices Committee, which found no negligence on the part of the doctors. The cause of death being Amniotic Fluid Embolism, the General Body of the 2nd respondent unanimously approved the findings of the committee on 3.2.2004 holding that there is no professional negligence on the part of any doctor. The 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the Medical Council of India, challenging the said proceedings, dated 11.2.2004, and the 1st respondent called all the doctors on 6.10.2005 to Delhi. It served a questionnaire and obtained the comments of all the doctors including the writ petitioner. Some expert opinions were also stated to have been gathered and suddenly the impugned order informed the Ethics Committee of the 1st respondent to have found him guilty of professional misconduct and recommended removal of the name of the writ petitioner from the Indian Medical Register for a period of three months. The writ petitioner contended that the Medical Council of India had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as there is no provision of law conferring such appellate jurisdiction under the statute or the regulations. The writ petitioner further contended that the appellate order is void apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and the expert evidence forming the basis for the impugned order was gathered behind the back of the writ petitioner without notice to him. The materia! was never furnished to the writ petitioner, more so while reversing the decision of the 2nd respondent and a criminal complaint under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and a complaint before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad for a compensation of Rs.1.00 crore was also initiated by the

(3.) WHILE an interim suspension of the impugned order was granted by a learned Judge of this Court on 3.8.2007, it was later extended until further orders.