The Medical Council of India lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed prior to the enactment of amended regulations, which clarified the appeal process.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.)

1. Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 1784 of 2013 and respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 698 of 2014.

Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 1784 of 2013 and respondent No. 2in W.A. No. 698 of 2014.

Mr. Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in W.A. No. 1784 of 2013 and appellant in W.A. No. 698 of 2014.

2. These intra court appeals are filed challenging the order, dated 25.03.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 16305 of 2007 on various grounds. Grounds pleaded in W.A. No. 1784 of 2013 are being considered.

3. Brief facts:

Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16305 of 2007, wherein order No. MCI-211(2)(133)/2004-Ethics/8222, dated 16.07.2007 of Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MCI') was challenged. A penalty of removal of name of the appellant from the Indian Medical Council Register for a period of three months was imposed by the said proceedings.

3.1. Appellant is a Medical Graduate and a Post Graduate Diploma in Anaesthesiology from Osmania University (in 2001). On 05.03.2003 at about 11.50 p.m., appellant received information from Dr. Rajesh Khanna (senior by one year and a close friend) about the admission of wife of respondent No. 3 in Shalini Maternity Hospital and was requested to provide medical attention including labour analgesia to her. Consent of the patient and her husband was taken before providing Epidural Analgesia and patient developed Obstetrics-Amniotic Fluid Embolism due to which patient died. A complaint was lodged with respondent No. 2 on 19.07.2003, alleging negligence on all treating doctors including appellant. The Ethical and Malpractices Committee of respondent No. 2 by order, dated 11.02.2004, discharged the three doctors who were arrayed as respondents in the complaint including the appellant.

3.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2004, respondent No. 3 (husband of the deceased) filed appeal, dated 31.03.2004 before MCI challenging the decision of respondent No. 2, appeal was received on 05.04.2004. Ethics Committee of MCI found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and recommended for removal of name from Indian Medical Register for a period of three months. Challenging the order of MCI, writ petition was filed and the learned Single Judge by setting aside order dated 16.07.2007 remitted the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration in accordance with law, particularly to comply with Regulation 8.2 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 2002'). The order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that an appeal was filed on 05.04.2004 challenging the orders, dated 11.02.2004, passed by respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the writ petition ought to have been allowed on the aspect of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is also submitted that Regulation Nos. 8.7 and 8.8 were incorporated by way of amendment to Regulations, 2002 and the said amendments were published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 27.05.2004.

4.1. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the decisions of Apex Court to the effect that right of appeal is not a vested right and it is a statutory right conferred. It is further submitted that in the present case, the amendment conferring the right of appeal was not in force on the date of filing of appeal by the aggrieved party. It is also submitted that an amendment ordinarily has a prospective effect, unless it is specified that the amendment has a retrospective effect.

4.2. It is submitted that original