The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a thorough examination of prima facie case and expert medical opinions before initiating disciplinary proceedings against medical professionals. The judgment also emphasizes the potential deleterious effects of unfounded disciplinary proceedings on public interest and the medical profession.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Petitioner a medical practitioner has presented this petition under Articles 226 & 227, grieving against the complaint dtd. 20/12/2011 made by the 2nd Respondent - Hospital, cognizance whereof having been taken, the 1st Respondent has issued Notice dtd. 23/12/2011 (Annexure K) initiating the proceedings for the alleged misconduct.

2. After service of notice, the 1st respondentKarnataka Medical Council has entered appearance through its Panel Counsel and filed its Statement of Objections on 4/4/2012. The 2nd Respondent - complainant having been represented by its private counsel, has also filed its Statement of Objections on 1/3/2017. The 3rd Respondent - doctor, despite service of notice, has chosen to remain unrepresented. The 4th Respondent whose husband was the patient is represented by her counsel as well. All the advocates appearing for the respondents resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned proceedings.

3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

(i) The petitioner was a Visiting Doctor and the 3rd Respondent was the Visiting Consultant Surgeon during the relevant period i.e., 2011 in the 2nd Respondent - Hospital; a patient namely, Mr. Jayaprakash, i.e., the husband of 4th Respondent herein underwent a serious surgical treatment in the 3rd week of September, 2011. Some medical complications having arisen, the patient was shifted to Apollo Hospital on 29/3/2011, wherein better medical facilities were available.

(ii) Some ruckus allegedly having been generated by the 4th Respondent and her father Puttegowda accompanied by hooligans, petitioner lodged an FIR on 2/10/2011 with the Kengeri Police, Bengaluru. The 4th Respondent too filed a police complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable u/s 506 (criminal intimidation) and u/s 338 (causing grievous hurt). This complaint having been investigated, Police have filed a 'B' Report dtd. 11/10/2011 (Annexure-C) What happened to petitioner's complaint remains inscrutable.

(iii) On 19/10/2011, the 4th Respondent accompanied by media people visited the premises of 2nd Respondent - Hospital and coerced for payment of Rs.40.00 Lakh towards reimbursement of Apollo Hospital Medical bills. The 4th Respondent claiming to have paid the same shooted a Legal Notice dtd. 21/12/2011 (Annexure-G) asking the Petitioner and 3rd Respondent to reimburse the same. In addition, it had also sought for a compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakh. Petitioner sent his reply dtd. 2/1/2012 (Annexure-H) denying the Notice claim.

(iv) The 2nd Respondent - Hospital also filed a complaint before the 1st Respondent - KMC on 22/12/2011 alleging professional misconduct against the petitioner. The same having been registered, the petitioner has been issued the subject Notice which he is calling in question in this petition inter alia on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, absence of jurisdictional facts malafide.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) What the Apex Court in JACOB MATHEW v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2005) 6 SCC 1 observed at paragraph 48 of the decision reads as under: "...Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused