Registration with the State Medical Council is mandatory for practicing medicine in the State, and the privileges granted under Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act are subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in Section 15(2) of the Act.

1. The case of the first petitioner is that he has obtained a Degree in M.B.B.S. and M.S., General Surgery and is presently pursuing his DNB (Surgical Gastro Enterology) Course at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. That he is a registered Medical Practitioner enrolled in terms of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the “State Act”).

2. The second petitioner is also a Doctor specialized in Surgical Gastroenterology and has obtained M.B.B.S., and a Post Graduation in Surgery and registered as a Medical Practitioner in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”).

3. The 3rd petitioner is the Head of the Department of Gastroenterology in Vikram Hospital, Mysore, who is a Medical Practitioner registered in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

4. On 30-9-2007 the second respondent came to Vikram Hospital, Mysore with a complaint of pain in the right lower quadrant since morning and associated with sweating. He was first seen by the Casualty Medical Officer who were in the Hospital and a case history was recorded. He was advised abdominal scanning. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of admission, the 2nd respondent along with his wife and guardian were explained in detail about the medical condition and after obtaining the consent of both the second respondent and his wife, the second petitioner decided to do an open Appendisectomy surgery which was conducted. The second respondent was discharged on 4-10-2007. It is contended by the respondent that he thereafter suffered various complications and as a consequence whereof, he was admitted to the B.M. Hospital at Mysore. He was accordingly treated and he recovered from the same. His case is that due to the gross medical negligence by the petitioners, he had suffered various complications. It is only at the D.M. Hospital, Mysore, that he was subsequently cured. Under these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore claiming compensation. The proceedings are still pending. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the 1st respondent, Karnataka Medical Council alleging professional negligence and accordingly sought action for the same. In pursuance whereof the impugned show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition is filed.

5. Sri. V.Y. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned notice is issued without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside. He contends that the said notice would amount to double jeopardy, in as much as proceedings have already been initiated before the Consumer Court. Hence, initiation of these proceedings on the same cause of action would result in double jeopardy and hence the notice requires to be quashed.

6. He further contends that petitioner No.2 has been registered as a Medical Practitioner under the Medical Council of India as per Section 27 of the Central Act and the said certificate is produced as Annexure-C. Similarly the 3rd petitioner has produced the Registration Certificate dated 25-2-1994 issued by the Registrar, Maharashtra Medical Council. The certificate for additional medical qualification letter dated 18-6-2004 has been produced before the Court today, written by the Secretary, Medical Council of India to state that the 3rd petition has been registered under Section 27 of the Central Act. he therefore contends that there is no jurisdiction for the respondent Medical Council to initiate these proceedings. By referring to Section 15 of the State Act, he contends that it is only a Medical Practitioner’s name that could be removed for professional misconduct, only after holding an enquiry. He contends, that in terms of Section 2(c) of the State Act, a registered practitioner has been defined to mean any person registered under the provisions of this Ac