IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Amit Kumar Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
LPA 687 of 2022 & CM Appls. 51401 of 2022 & 51403 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding appeal rights. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. court's interpretation of applicable law. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. principles of harmonious construction. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.
1. The present LPA arises out of an Order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7566/2022 whereby the same was dismissed on the ground that an Order of the Ethics and Medical Board can only be subjected to an appeal by a `medical practitioner' or a `professional'.
2. The facts in brief, leading to the instant appeal are as under:
i. It is stated that in the year 2017, the Appellant lost his nephew as a result of Haplo Stem Cell Transplant, a clinical trial carried out by Respondent No.4/ Dr. Satyender Katewa at Respondent No.3/ Manipal Hospital, Jaipur.
ii. It is stated that the Appellant herein filed a complaint before Rajasthan State Medical Council on 12.03.2018, and before the Medical Council of India (MCI)/National Medical Commission (NMC) on 27.03.2018. Furthermore, an FIR was also registered by the Appellant at Bidyadhar Nagar PS, Jaipur, against Respondent No.4.
iii. Upon the failure of the Rajasthan State Medical Council to take action, the MCI vide letter dated 14.08.2018 asked the Rajasthan State Medical Council to begin proceedings, failing which the MCI would take over.
iv. As the Rajasthan State Medical Council still did not act on the complaint filed by the Appellant, the MCI was compelled to step in and, vide Order dated 13.12.2018, directed the Rajasthan State Medical Council to provide it with all the necessary documents pertaining to the complaint.
v. During the pendency of the said complaint before the MCI, the Rajasthan State Medical Council vide Order dated 05.03.2021, declared that the Respondent No. 4 was not guilty.
vi. This Order passed by the Rajasthan State Medical was challenged before the Ethics and Medical Registration Board of the MCI/NMC, which dismissed the appeal inter alia on the ground that nothing unethical seemed to have been done by the Physician, and further that Respondent No. 3 was well-equipped to carry out the transplant.
vii. Thereafter, vide Order dated 05.04.2021, the MCI/NMC dismissed the complaint of the Appellant.
viii. This order was challenged before the NMC vide letter dated 05.04.2021. However, due to the inaction of the NMC in addressing the grievance of the Appellant, the Appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 7566/2022 before this Court.
ix. The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 02.09.2022 dismissed W.P. (C) No. 7566/2022 on the ground that an appeal against the Order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board cannot be preferred by a `complainant' and can only be filed by a `medical practitioner' or `professional'. It was further observed that the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 does not confer any right on a complainant to file appeals.
x. The complainant has, thereafter, filed this instant appeal.
3. The short question of law which arises for consideration in this case is whether an appeal against an order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board is maintainable by the complainant before the National Medical Commission or not.
4. The facts of the case which are relevant for deciding this legal issue is that the Appellant had filed a complaint against Respondent No.4/ Dr. Satyender Katewa before Rajasthan State Medical Council stating that his nephew was suffering from thalassemia major and Respondent No. 4 induced the family to opt for Haplo Stem Cell Transplant treatment by charging an exorbitant amount of money without taking an informed consent from the family. The complaint notes that Respondent No.4, by doing so, had committed professional misconduct. The Ethics and Medical Registration Board by its order dated 31.03.2021, after considering the comp
An appeal from the Ethics and Medical Registration Board's decision is restricted to medical practitioners only under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, not available to complainants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board's implied power to grant stay to disciplinary action during the pendency of an appeal ....
The Medical Council of India lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed prior to the enactment of amended regulations, which clarified the appeal process.
A complainant lacks standing to appeal against a disciplinary decision of the Council unless an order has been made against them, as defined by the Medical Act 1971.
Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, allows for the removal of a doctor's name from the register for professional misconduct, b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.