The dismissal of serious allegations against a practitioner for non-appearance undermines public safety and warrants restoration of the complaint for merits evaluation.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)--This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by learned MM, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC No. 10898/16 titled `Delhi Medical Council v. Parnay Kumar Biswash'.

2. A bare perusal of the paper book shows that in the present case, due to oversight and an inadvertent error, there was no appearance before the learned MM as a result of which the complaint filed by the Delhi Medical Council was dismissed in default for non appearance and non prosecution vide impugned order dated 17.07.2017.

3. The respondent has been served and there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent either on the last date or today. Since the respondent has been served and has chosen not to appear, I am proceeding to hear and decide the matter on merits. In the present matter, the complaint filed by the petitioner is of a serious nature. It has been alleged that the respondent has been practicing as an Allopathic doctor without having the requisite qualifications.

4. The complaint was dismissed in default and not on mertits, hence, the CRL.L.P. is allowed and Special Leave to Appeal is granted and taken up for hearing today. The appeal is directed to be numbered.

CRL.A.________________/2022(to be numbered)

5. The Appellant-Delhi Medical Council is a statutory body constituted under the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997. It is responsible for maintaining a register of Medical Practitioners who are engaged in the practice of modern scientific system of medicine and all its branches. Under Section 10(h) of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997, one of the functions of the Council is to ensure that no unqualified person practices modern scientific system of Medicine.

6. On 11.02.2011, the Delhi Medical Council received a letter dated 09.02.2011 from one Dr. N.R. Goyal, CMO, (A & Q), Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi enclosing a letter dated 20.10.2010 by Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, Addl. CDMO (N-W) addressed to the CMO (Anti-quackery), Department of Health Services, F-17, Karkardooma, Delhi informing that in response to a complaint received in the district, an inspection/survey was carried out by the ACDMO of the district.

7. An inspection report in respect of the respondent mentioned that a clinic was run by him in the name and style of Bangali Clinic Near Bala ji Dharam Kanta Ke Sath, Near Bawana, DSSIDC Complex, Bawana to Delhi Road, Bawana, Delhi. The respondent-Pranay Kumar was having qualification of 10th, RMP and registered with Patna, Bihar vide Reg No. 28985/09. It was mentioned that the respondent had been practicing in Allopathy system of medicine with no valid qualification/registration. Action was recommended to be taken against him. Show-cause-notice dated 16.03.2011 was issued to the respondent by the appellant directing him to stop practicing Allopathic System of Medicine forthwith and also to appear before the appellant along with supporting documents on 23.03.2011. The respondent neither replied nor appeared before the appellant.

8. On 27.04.2011 an order was passed by the appellant directing the respondent to stop practicing Allopathy forthwith and to close down his clinic. This order has not been set aside/modified. As per the inspection report, the clinic of the respondent is still running. Hence, the appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 27 of the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 and under Section 419 IPC and the said complaint could not be prosecuted due to oversight and hence was dismissed in default.

9. I am of the view that the appeal needs to be allowed. The allegations against the respondent are of very serious nature. The respondent, despite not having requisite medical qualification is indulging in Allopathic form of medical practice and endangering the life of innocent citizens. The show-cause-notice has not been responded to or any supporting documents supplied by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant has taken