SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Cal) 1368

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K.J. SENGUPTA, ASIM KUMAR RAY, JJ.
Medical Council of India - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
M.A.T.613 of 2010 A.S.T.60 of 2010 A.S.T.53 of 2010 In connection with W.P.9740 (W) of 2009
Decided on : Sep 29,2011

Advocates appeared:
Saugata Bhattacharyya, Surajit Samanta, Madhumita Roy, Biswajit Samanta, Debajit Samanta Saibalendu Bhowmick, Manisha Bhowmick, Jaydeep Kar, Pratik Dhar, Siddhartha Ghosh, Subir Sanyal, Ratul Biswas

The provisions of a State Act are not repugnant to the provisions of a Central Act and the regulations framed thereunder if the object of both the enactments is the same and they can operate harmoniously.

Headnote:

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA - Regulation 8.8 - Ultra Vires - Repugnancy - Bengal Medical Act, 1914 - S. 26 - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - S. 24(2) - Constitution of India - Art. 254(1) - MCI Regulation 8.8 is not ultra vires, but the State Government's jurisdiction under the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 cannot be overridden by the regulation. The provisions of the State Act are not repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act and the regulations framed thereunder.

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was made to the West Bengal Medical Council against Dr. Rupa Basu (Rupa), a qualified doctor, alleging medical negligence in a caesarean section operation performed by her. The Medical Council found her guilty of professional misconduct and issued a warning. On appeal, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, enhanced the punishment to removal of Rupa's name from the register of Registered Medical Practitioners for six months. Rupa challenged the order in the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Principal Secretary had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the Central Act and regulations framed thereunder provided for a different mechanism for dealing with appeals against decisions of the State Medical Council. The court also held that Regulation 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment Regulation 2002) was ultra vires as it took away the provisions of the Act under which it was framed.

Issues: 1. Whether the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the State Medical Council. 2. Whether the provisions of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 were repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the regulations framed thereunder. 3. Whether Regulation 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment Regulation 2002) was ultra vires.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the provisions of the State Act and the Central Act were not repugnant to each other and could operate harmoniously. 2. The provisions of the State Act were not repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act and the regulations framed thereunder as the object of both the enactments was the same, to redress grievances against decisions of the State Council. 3. Regulation 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment Regulation 2002) was not ultra vires as it was framed with the approval of the Supreme Court and did not take away the provisions of the Act under which it was framed.

Final Decision: The High Court's judgment and order were set aside, and the order of the Principal Secretary was upheld.

JUDGMENT

K.J. SENGUPTA, J.

1. BOTH the above appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17th February, 2010 in the aforesaid writ petition. By the impugned judgment and order the writ petition filed by the appellant in the second mentioned Appeal (A.S.T. 53 of 2010) Dr. Rupa Basu (Banerjee) (hereinafter referred to as "Rupa") was dismissed. First mentioned appeal (A.S.T. 60 of 2010) has been preferred by the appellant, Medical Council of India against the findings of the learned Trial Judge in the said writ petition that the Rule 8.8 of the Regulation of 2002 is unconstitutional.

2. The fact leading to preferring the aforesaid two appeals are summarized hereunder:- Rupa is a qualified doctor having registration certificate issued by the West Bengal Medical Council. She holds diploma in Gynecology and Obstetrics from Calcutta University and also Post Graduation Degree in the same field. One Smt. Modhumita Boral the respondent No.6 was admitted to the Nursing Home owned and run by Rupa under the name and style of New Life Maternity, Chanditala Hooghly, for delivery of third child of the respondent No.6. Accordingly, Rupa being the attending Surgeon in the morning of 15th August, 1999, undertook lower uterine caesarian section and bilateral tubectomy operation of Respondent No.6 who gave birth to a female baby. Nine days thereafter the said patient and female baby were discharged from Nursing Home on 24th August, 1999. On 27th August, 1999, on call Rupa attended respondent No.6 for dressing the caesarian section scar and wound. On 30th August, 1999, the respondent No.6 attended the nursing home with complaint of bleeding from caesarian section scar. In view of repeated complaint being made Dr. Biplab Banerjee, the husband of Rupa who is also a medical practitioner owing to his social connection attended the respondent No. 6 at her residence on 31st August, 1999 and dressed the scar and wound and also prescribed medicines. The husband of Rupa thereafter attended the respondent No.6 in the first week of September, 1999 at her residence absolutely gratuitously and not professionally. Thereafter it was discovered that after birth of the said female baby it became a victim of "Birth Asphysia" and underwent prolonged treatment but expired on 18th February 2002 on way to B.R. Singh Hospital being referred to by Chanditala Hospital.

It appears that the husband of the respondent No.6 made a complaint on 29th June, 2004 to the West Bengal Medical Council. Accordingly, Rupa was served with a memo bearing No.1492-C/75/2004 dated 22nd July, 2004 issued from the West Bengal Medical Council under relevant provision of the Bengal Medical Act, 19144. It was complained that on 14th August 1999 Rupa is alleged to have performed defective caesarian section operation on 15th August, 1999. It was also complained that operation was done with spinal anaesthesia though on record it was done as general anaesthesia in the discharge certificate. It was alleged that Rupa did not take care or proper care during operation and had taken an unqualified person to assist her during operation. No Paediatrician was taken to assist at the Operation Theater during the operation to ensure proper care of the newly born baby. It was not indicated in the record that tubectomy operation was performed at the time of lower uterine caesarian section. On receipt of the said notice Rupa duly replied to the same and defended herself contending that she is innocence.

3. ON 6th June, 2006, after detailed enquiry and taking evidence the West Bengal Medical Council found that three charges framed against Rupa had been substantiated and the West Bengal Medical Council had decided to warn Rupa for professional misconduct. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the said complainant Sri Susanta Kumar Boral to the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal. The Principal Secretary of the said dep






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top