BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
M.G. Ethayarajan - Appellant
Versus
Director, Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 5568 of 2025, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 4062, 4064, 5812 of 2025
Decided On : 03-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of medical practice and allegations against petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. committee's actions based on administrative findings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. preliminary proceedings and responses. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. arguments regarding natural justice violations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. legal framework of the relevant act. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. contentions from the respondents. (Para 23) |
| 7. analysis of alternate remedy arguments. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. discussion on oral complaints and inspections. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. examination of conflicts of interest. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 11. judicial propriety and fair-play. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 12. excess of jurisdiction. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 13. interpretation of relevant statutory provisions. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 14. clarification on advertising and qualifications. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 15. limitations of authority in disciplinary matters. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 16. conclusions on procedural and jurisdictional flaws. (Para 72 , 73) |
| 17. final order and implications. (Para 74) |
ORDER :
1. The present Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Ref.No.550/E4/2025 dated 24.02.2025 and for a further direction to the respondents not to interfere with the practice of medical profession by the petitioner, except in accordance with law.
Brief facts:
2. The petitioner is a medical doctor. He is running a clinical establishment under the name and style of “Irudhayams Hospital” at No.465/ABL Channel Bank Road, VN Puram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The affidavit and documents reveal that the petitioner completed his undergraduation in Medicine from Madurai Medical College in 1986. He registered himself as a practitioner with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council in 1987. Thereafter, he has undergone the following training:
(i) Special training in General Medicine with the Government Headquarters Hospital at Nagercoil;
(ii) Special training in Pediatrics at the same institution;
(iii) Special training in Dermatology at the same institution;
(iv) Special training in Cardiovascular cartography at at the Center of Advanced Research and Development (CARD), Bangalore;
(v) Diploma in Non-invasive Cardiology from Tashkent Medical University;
(vi) Post Graduate Diploma in Health Sciences in Diabetology from Annamalai University;
(vii) Post Graduate in Clinical Cardiology from IMA AKN Sinha Institute of Continuing Medical and Health Education and Research, New Delhi;
(viii) Post Graduate Diploma in Health Sciences in Echo Cardiography from Annamalai University;
(ix) Master of Health Science (Preventive Cardiology) from Annamalai University;
(x) Master of Health Science (Diabetology) from Annamalai University; and (xi) Special training in Enhanced External Counter Pulsation (EECP) technique from Clarity Medical Equipments.
3. The petitioner claims that he had gained experience in Cardiology by working under one, Dr.Arthanaree, M.D., D.M.(cardio) for nearly 10 years. The said Arthanaree is a Senior Interventional Cardiologist at Apollo Hospitals, Chennai with nearly 45 years of experience in the said field.
4. He claims that using cardiovascular cartography, a non-invasive method, he is able to detect coronary artery blocks. The blocks that are detected are managed again by using non- invasive methods unlike Angiogram, Angioplasty or Bypass surgery, which require a expert Cardiologist or a Cardiovascular Surgeon. He claims to be trained in Enhanced External Counter Pulsation (EECP) techniques and Cartography and utilizing the said knowledge, he has been attending to patients with Nagercoil as his headquarters.
5. The cause of action for the present Writ Petition is a communication that he had received from the second respondent / Joint Director on 19.02.2025. On 19.02.2025, the second

Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs. The Union of India
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra
M/s. Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
The suspension of a medical practitioner's license was quashed due to violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction in enforcing external regulations.
Medical practitioners are entitled to fair procedures and natural justice, particularly concerning allegations of infamous conduct, which must align with specific misconduct definitions.
The authority to regulate clinical establishments lies exclusively with the designated authority under the Clinical Establishments Act, rendering actions by others unauthorized and the allegations ag....
Suspension of registration under the respective enactments is permissible only under extraordinary circumstances in public interest, with reasons recorded in writing.
Practitioners of unrecognized medical systems like Electropathy cannot legally practice medicine without valid qualifications recognized by the Government.
The notice issued for disciplinary action against a medical practitioner must comply with mandatory procedural requirements, failing which it is considered void and unenforceable.
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.