1. The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioner is a Medical Practitioner and is a Consultant in Surgical Gastroenterology and Laparoscopic Surgery. He is also said to be a Multi-organ Transplant Surgeon and was working as a consultant with M/s Fortis Hospital, Bangalore.

The petitioner is said to be conferred with innumerable honours both in India and abroad, over the years in recognition of his expertise and advanced knowledge in the field of organ transplantation.

During the year 2010, Smt. Seema Rai, the wife of the third respondent was said to have been diagnosed with severe diabetes and end-stage renal failure, was undergoing dialysis treatment at M/s Fortis Hospital. She was also said to have been registered with the Zonal Co-ordination Committee of Karnataka (Hereinafter referred to as the "ZCCK", for brevity) for cadaver kidney transplantation. ZCCK is a body co-ordinating and regulating the harvesting of cadaver organs in the State of Karnataka. It is stated that this body ensures that whenever a cadaver organ becomes available, atleast five expectant recipient patients, on a waiting list, are intimated so as to ensure that atleast one recipient can be identified with a blood group cross match and other compatibility criteria, so that the cadaver organ is successfully grafted and to ensure that the organ is not lost or wasted.

It is said that M/s Fortis Hospital had received a call from ZCCK on 1.5.2010, intimating them of the availability of a kidney for transplantation with reference to Smt.Rai; The hospital is said to have, in turn, intimated her and her family and she was immediately admitted to the Emergency Transplant surgery on the night of 1.5.2010. It transpires that she had waited for a year to be the recipient of the available organ. It is claimed that Smt.Rai and her family had been adequately counselled during this waiting period of the procedures and protocols involved.

It is claimed that ZCCK had intimated that pancreas was also available from the same cadaver donor and that there was no other prospective recipient registered for the same at that point of time with ZCCK. It is stated that on account of Smt.Rai being a severe diabetic, she was to benefit by a pancreatic transplant as well and hence it is claimed that she and her family were informed. It is said that after due deliberation, consent was given for the dual transplantation of kidney and pancreas.

It is stated that on the early morning of 2.5.2010, kidney transplant surgery was successfully carried out on Smt.Rai. It is thereafter that the pancreas transplantation had been carried out. It transpires that the patient developed a rare, but serious complication called - disseminated intravascular coagulation-(abnormal bleeding). Over the next three days, it is stated, the patient required multiple units of blood, plasma, platelets etc., to control the bleeding and she did appear to recover - but on the third day after surgery, she is said to have developed high fever and died the following day on account of sepsis.

It is stated that the third respondent who, it is claimed, had not raised any complaint or grievance during the treatment and surgery, is said to have lodged a complaint before the J.P.Nagar Police Station, as on 2.6.2010, accusing the petitioner and a Nephrologist, who had treated the deceased for her renal failure, of acts of negligence. This is said to have been followed by a complaint against them before the Karnataka Medical Council (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KMC', for brevity). On the basis of the criminal complaint, the police are said to have registered a case for offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is claimed that the investigation in the criminal case was incomplete as on the date of this petition.

The KMC had held an enquiry against the petitioner and another in respect of the complaint and after a full fledged enquiry, had held that there was no case m