2026 Supreme(Gau) 1932
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Siddhartha Buragohain S/o Lt. Dr. Bharat Chandra Buragohain - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 6702 Of 2018
Decided On : 28-08-2026
Act Referred
Assam Medical Council Act : S.23, S.32(d)
Advocate Appeared:
Advocate for the Petitioner:Mr. A K Bhattacharyya, Ms R B Deb,Mr. K K Bhattacharyya, Mr D K Bhattacharyya Advocate
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Mr B Gogoi, Mr. D Upamanyu, SC, Health & Family
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. A K Bhattacharyaa, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D K Bhattacharyaa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Upamanyu, learned Standing counsel, appearing for the Health Department.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 07.09.2018 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby his name was removed from the Register of the Assam Medical Council for a period of six months from the date of issuance of the said order.
3. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that after completing his MBBS degree in the year 1996, the petitioner obtained his MD in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the year 2004 from Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh. He thereafter joined Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat as Registrar in the year 2009 and was promoted as Assistant Professor in the year 2012. He continued in the said capacity until 11.08.2017, when he was transferred to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar.
On 16.07.2017, while the petitioner was on duty in the Emergency Labour Room at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, one Junali Das was admitted at about 5:00 p.m. The petitioner examined her and found that she was at an advanced stage of pregnancy with no foetal movement. An ultrasonography examination subsequently confirmed intrauterine foetal death, the absence of foetal movement having been noticed since the morning of 16.07.2017.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that, as there was no other complication in the condition of the patient at that stage, immediate caesarean section was not advised and, in accordance with the prevailing medical protocol in cases of intrauterine foetal death, an attempt was made for vaginal delivery. On 17.07.2017 at about 8:00 a.m., upon completion of his duty, the petitioner handed over the patients under his charge, including the said patient, to the next duty doctor.
It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter he was entrusted with duty in the Emergency Labour Room only once, i.e. on 19.07.2017, when he again examined the patient and found no complication warranting any immediate surgical intervention. According to him, the patient continued to be attended by different duty doctors, including Visiting Surgeons, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, and attempts were made to induce normal labour from 17.07.2017 to 20.07.2017.
On 21.07.2017, a decision was taken to perform a lower segment caesarean section (LSCS), and the operation was performed by Dr. Bornali Pegu under the supervision of Dr. Runjun Doloi. The patient subsequently developed complications and died on 22.07.2017.
4. Following the death of the patient, enquiries were conducted at different levels. The petitioner was held responsible principally on the ground that he was the duty doctor when the patient was initially admitted. He was transferred from Jorhat Medical College and Hospital to Silchar Medical College and Hospital by order dated 11.08.2017 and was thereafter placed under suspension by order dated 25.08.2017 pending initiation of departmental proceedings on the allegation of serious negligence of duty resulting in the death of the patient. He was also debarred from private practice during the period of suspension.
During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, respondent No. 5, by the impugned order dated 07.09.2018, withdrew the petitioner’s registration for a period of six months purportedly in exercise of the power under Section 32(D) of the Assam Medical Council Act, 1999, on the ground that he was guilty of not maintaining good medical practice and the duties of a physician towards his patient. The petitioner was also directed to surrender the original registration certificate.
Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Mr. A K Bhattacharyaa, learned senior counsel appearing for