SANTOSH KUMAR CHANDWANI Vs. MADHYA PRADESH MEDICAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Press release dated 29.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.1.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.2 made a complaint to the respondent No.1 alleging therein that his wife was pregnant as such she was admitted to Pushpa Mission Hospital-respondent No.4 and on 13.8.2012 she delivered twins and was discharged on 22.9.2012. Thereafter it was found that eyes of the kids have been lost. On the basis of the said complaint, a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice and denied all the allegations. In the reply the petitioner stated that the twins were prematurely born and were having various problems and entire information was provided to the parents, but they were not agreeable to take the kids for higher center for further treatment and even the discharge was sought by them on 22.9.2012 against the advice of the doctors. Thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.2019 to appear before the Etiquette cumDisciplinary Committee on 28.12.2019. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3/Committee, but first complainant /respondent No.2 was called behind the back of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was called behind the back of the complainant and was given two minutes chance to explain his stand and thereafter without passing any order on 29.12.2019 respondent No.1 issued a public notice in daily Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Nai Duniya intimating the public at large that certificate of practice of the petitioner has been suspended for one year on the ground of negligence in treating the patient. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no impugned order was served on the petitioner even though he visited the office of the respondent No.1. He argues that the respondent No.1 does not have any jurisdiction, competence and authority of law to decide the case of professional misconduct against the doctors since MPMCI is not constituted and it is only the Commissioner, Medical Services who is competent as has been held by this Court in the case of Dr. Manoj Bansal vs. M.P. Medical Council and others and Dr. Devendas Gupta alias Dr. D.K. Gupta vs. M.P. State Medical Council and others passed in W.P. No.28100/2019 and another connected Writ Petition, which has been decided by the Gwalior Bench. The alleged complaint does not fall within purview of the either M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 or the Regulation 2002 and the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order be set aside. He relied on the judgment passed by Kalkatha High Court in the case of Tapan Mukherjee and others vs. Medical Council of India decided on 30.11.2018 in W.P.No.4202/2015.