The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clarity in specifying the reasons for finding medical practitioners guilty of negligence and the need for consistency in the basis of disciplinary actions by the Medical Council of India.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner – a practicing medical doctor – has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 18.11.2016 (hereafter “the impugned order”) passed by the Medical Council of India (hereafter “MCI”).

2. The impugned order was passed in an appeal preferred by Mr Ram Singh Panwar (respondent no.3) against an order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Delhi Medical Council (hereafter “DMC”). The petitioners principal grievance is that the punitive measure of warning as was issued by DMC by its order dated 30.07.2015 has been sustained by MCI against the petitioner and respondent no.5 but respondent no.4, who was the operating surgeon and had conducted surgery on respondent no.3’s wife, has been fully absolved of any negligence/misconduct. The petitioner contends that in view of the aforesaid decision absolving respondent no.4 of any medical negligence, the punitive measure against the petitioner and respondent no.5 could not have been sustained by MCI.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:

3.1 Respondent no.3’s wife, Smt Kamla Panwar (hereafter “the patient”) was treated at Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi (hereafter “the hospital”) by the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 4 & 5.

3.2 The patient came to the Out Patient Department (OPD) of the hospital on 02.06.2012 complaining of pain in both knees. The patient was admitted to the hospital for Bilateral Knee Replacement on 13.07.2012. She was operated upon for knee replacement on 14.07.2012. The condition of the patient deteriorated after the operation and she expired shortly thereafter.

3.3 Respondent no.3 filed a complaint with DMC alleging negligence on the part of the attending doctors (petitioner, respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5). The said complaint was examined by the Disciplinary Committee of DMC. The Committee found that the patient was suffering from urinary infection and on 13.07.2012 “The patient was started on injection Augmentation and injection amikacin for Urinary Tract Infection” and the surgery was performed on the next date. The Committee held that there was no reasonable justification for performing surgery when the patient was being treated for urinary infection. The Committee noted that the surgery was an elective surgery and could have been performed after the patient had fully recovered. It held that “it was necessary to first completely treat the urine infection before undertaking surgery as per accepted professional practices”. Consequently, the Committee also concluded that the surgery was performed for extraneous consideration.

3.4 Accordingly to the Disciplinary Committee of DMC, “the C.T. angiography finding of acute pulmonary edema and not of pulmonary embolism would suggest transfusion resulted acute lung infection (TRALI) as a rare cause of death”. The Committee also observed that an autopsy should have been done to confirm the cause of death.

3.5 In view of the above, the Disciplinary Committee of DMC recommended that a warning be issued to respondent no. 4 (Dr Surya Bhan), respondent no. 5 (Dr Ajay Singhal) and the petitioner (Dr Govil) and they be advised to be careful. The aforesaid recommendations were confirmed by DMC and the DMC awarded the punishment of warning to the three attending doctors including the petitioner.

3.6 Respondent no.3 was aggrieved by the quantum of punishment awarded as according to him the punishment ought to have been more severe. He, accordingly, preferred an appeal before the Ethics Committee of MCI which was disposed of by the impugned order. The Ethics Committee of MCI held that the condition of the patient had deteriorated after the second blood transfusion in the ICU and this made it clear that there was no negligence on the part of Dr Surya Bhan, respondent no.4 who was the operating surgeon. The Ethics Committee of MCI further held that Dr Ajay Singhal and the petitioner “did not manage the patient properly”.