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
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




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.

Headnote:(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Sections 22(3) and 30(4) - Appeal against the order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board - The court held that appeals can only be made by medical practitioners or professionals, not complainants, as per the provisions of the Act - Dismissal of the writ petition was upheld. (Paras 2, 6, 26)

(B) Legal standing - The court emphasized that only those directly associated with the professional practice could challenge decisions regarding professional misconduct, reiterating the importance of specific provisions in legislative interpretation. (Paras 10, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, following the death of his nephew during a medical procedure and subsequent complaints to medical authorities, sought judicial review after the Rajasthan State Medical Council ruled in favor of the physician.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the appeal process is restricted to practitioners, thereby confirming the claims made by ethics boards are not extendable to complainants.

Issues: The core issue was the maintainability of an appeal against the Ethics and Medical Registration Board’s ruling by someone who is not a medical professional.

Ratio Decidendi: The decision outlined that, according to the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, the right to appeal is explicitly limited, aligning interpretation with legislative intent to maintain the structure of medical conduct and review.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

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