Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Rashmi Dixit - Appellant
Versus
Medical Council Of India & Anr. - Respondents
L.P.A. 23 Of 2018
Decided On : 25-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Appeal – Prescribed a medication course – Appeal has been filed impugning order/judgment, wherein learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ Petition, i.e., filed by Appellant stating that there is no infirmity with view taken by Respondent No.1 - Medical Council of India.
Finding of the court: Treatment of Appellant by an unqualified doctor and its repercussions on health of Appellant has also not been looked into by either Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 have arrived at a finding that there was correct, ethical and professional treatment of the Appellant – Court are constrained to set aside Impugned Judgment and relegate parties to Respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the issues afresh, keeping in mind discussions and aforementioned principles – All Rights and contentions of parties are, however, left open – Needless to say, that Respondent No.3 would be at liberty to examine Appellant and Respondent No.2, the role of A.L. Hospital and any other person it deems necessary.
Results: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.]
1. The present Appeal has been filed impugning order/judgment dated 20.10.2016 (hereinafter “the Impugned Judgment”), wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 7320/2016 filed by the Appellant inter-alia stating that there is no infirmity with the view taken by the Respondent No.1 – Medical Council of India.
2. The record reflects that a Coordinate Bench of this Court by its orders dated 28.08.2018 and 12.03.2018 had directed the Respondent No.1 to produce its original file in relation to the case of the Appellant. We are informed by Mr T. Singhdev, Advocate who appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the original file of the Respondent No. 1 was brought to Court on 14.09.2022.
3. Since pleadings in the matter are complete, the parties made submissions on 14.09.2022 when the Judgment was reserved in the matter.
4. The brief facts that are relevant for the purposes of this Appeal are set forth below:
(i) On 04.05.2013, the Appellant and her husband visited Respondent No.2 at Amar Leela Hospital and Heart Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter called “A.L. Hospital”) for issues related to infertility and ancillary gynaecological issues.
(ii) It is the submission of the Appellant that they chose Respondent No.2 as their doctor based on representations made by her that she was a Gynaecologist and Infertility specialist.
(iii) It is the case of the Appellant that after some investigations, Respondent No.2 prescribed a medication course to enable the Appellant to conceive on 04.05.2013. The medical prescription albeit (not very legible) has been filed by the Appellant.
(iv) On 22.05.2013, the Appellant experienced severe abdominal pain on her right side, pursuant to which she was asked by Respondent No.2 to come to A.L. Hospital.
(v) Investigations made on 22.05.2013 by an ultra sound machine, revealed that the Appellant was suffering from Torsion RT Ovarian Cyst with Hemorrhage. The Respondent No.2 and the General Surgeon in A.L. Hospital i.e. one, Dr. V.S. Solanki, advised the Appellant that a Laparoscopic surgery was needed to be carried out to completely remove the right Ovary along with the Fallopian Tube in order to treat the issue. This surgery was performed on the Appellant and thereafter the Appellant was discharged from the A.L. Hospital on 24.05.2013.
(vi) On 25.05.2013, the Appellant had to be re-admitted to the A.L. Hospital as her condition worsened and she was experiencing symptoms which included abdominal swelling, acidity, nausea and difficulty in breathing. The Appellant was advised a series of tests and ultra sound(s) and on 25.05.2013 was diagnosed as suffering from abdominal distention, Ascites, gas, Ileus, small bowel loops and pleural effusion.
(vii) The Appellant was once again advised to be hospitalized by Respondent No.2 and Dr. V.S. Solanki and this time the hospitalization lasted for 9 days, from 26.05.2013 to 03.06.2013. However, the condition of the Appellant only worsened and the Appellant got herself discharged from A. L. Hospital and got herself admitted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (hereinafter “RML Hospital”).
(viii) On her admission to RML Hospital on 04.06.2013, the Appellant was advised that she had severe Intestinal adhesion and required an immediate surgery to remove the 200 ml. (approx.) of “pus” in her abdomen. After a hospitalization of more than 10 days in RML Hospital, the Appellant was discharged on 15.06.2013.
(ix) On 16.06.2013, the husband of the Appellant filed a complaint with the Respondent No.3 (District CMO, New Delhi) wherein inter-alia, a brief history of the matter was given and it was submitted that the medical negligence on the part of Respondent No.2 and Dr. V.S. Solanki of A.L. Hospital be examined and that the Respondent No.3 take strict action against the said doctors.
(x) The Respondent No.3 through its Executive Committee examined the complaint and the statements of Dr. R.P. Singh, Dr. V.S. So
A professional may be held liable for negligence, if he was not possessed of requisite skills which he professed to have possessed.
A medical practitioner misrepresenting qualifications and providing treatment without specialization may be deemed negligent, necessitating reevaluation of prior findings by regulatory bodies.
To establish medical negligence, a complainant must prove a breach of duty by the medical professional, accompanied by cogent evidence. Vague allegations are insufficient.
Known surgical complications like bowel injury during hysterectomy by qualified doctors do not constitute negligence if due care exercised; Medical Council findings post-remand hold great relevance a....
Courts will not interfere with the opinion of medical experts unless in rare and exceptional cases. A litigant who hides facts which are in his knowledge has no right to be heard on the merits of his....
Healthcare providers must adhere to the standard of care associated with their qualifications, reinforcing medical negligence principles.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
