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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Rashmi Dixit - Appellant
Versus
Medical Council of India - Respondent
LPA 23 of 2018
Decided On : 25-11-2022




A medical practitioner misrepresenting qualifications and providing treatment without specialization may be deemed negligent, necessitating reevaluation of prior findings by regulatory bodies.

Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Clauses 1.4.1, 1.4.2, and 7.20 - Medical negligence - The appellant contended that respondent claimed to be a qualified specialist without requisite qualifications, leading to misrepresentation and negligent treatment. The learned Single Judge found no medical negligence. The Court held that negligence requires factual examination not suitable for Article 226 remedies. (Paras 5.2, 9, 10.10)

(B) Medical Negligence - Informed consent, reasonable standards of care - The court emphasized that discrepancies in medical competence and representation can imply negligence under professional standards. (Paras 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant underwent treatment for infertility by a respondent who misrepresented her qualifications. Post-surgery complications led to a significant deterioration in the appellant's health, prompting a complaint of medical negligence. Respondent committees initially found no negligence. (Paras 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that while no obvious negligence was established at the prior review levels, the qualifications misrepresentation warranted further examination. Respondents must effectively assess the treatment provided. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: Whether the absence of qualifications of the treating physician constituted medical negligence and whether existing processes adequately addressed the appellant's complaints. (Paras 6, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court overturned the decision stating the failure to evaluate the treatment provided by an unqualified doctor constitutes a presumption of negligence and necessitates thorough reevaluation. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Appeal allowed and matter remanded for fresh examination.

Table of Content
1. appellant's medical treatment history and allegations. (Para 1 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding qualifications and treatment received. (Para 6)
3. court's analysis of claims and responsibilities in medical negligence. (Para 7 , 8)
4. standard of care and legal implications of misrepresentation. (Para 9 , 10)
5. reversal of judgment and remanding for further inquiry. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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