LPA 487/2019

Page 1 of 24

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 17 August 2023

Judgment pronounced on: 31 August 2023

+

LPA 487/2019 and CM APPL. 33424/2019 (134 Days Delay)

KRISHAN LAL KUMAR

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Rudro Chatterje, Mr. Jatin

Teotia, Mr. Mohit Bangwal

and Md. Tanvir, Advs.

versus

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. T. Singh Dev, Ms. Anum

Hussain,

Mr.

Abhijit

Chakravarty,

Mr.

Tanishq

Srivastava, Mr. Bhanu Gulati,

Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani and

Ms. Ramnpreet Kaur, Advs.

for R-1/MCI

Mr. Praveen Khattar, Adv. for

R-2/Delhi Medical Council

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1.

The appellant has instituted this ‗Letters Patent Appeal‘ in

terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Lahore, as applicable to the

Delhi High Court, read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Courts Act,

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:31.08.2023

17:58:47

Signature Not Verified

LPA 487/2019

Page 2 of 24

1996¹, against the impugned Judgment dated 06 February 2019,

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby a Writ

Petition instituted by him bearing WP(C) No. 7097/2013 seeking Writ

of Mandamus or any other writ or direction to quash the order dated

26 April 2013 passed by the respondent No.1 and also seeking

disciplinary action against the respondent No.3 and for cancellation of

his registration as Medical Practitioner or debar from his medical

practice on account of negligence leading to the death of his wife, was

dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2.

The appellant is about 80 years of age and he grieves that his

wife about 67 year of age died due to medical negligence at the hands

of respondent no. 3. It is stated that his wife had been suffering from

‗Brain Tumor‘ and had been under medical treatment of respondent

No.3 since 2003, who operated upon her for the first time on 03

November 2003; and thereafter she remained under his follow-up

treatment. In 2008, she was again advised to undergo ‗Tumor Excision

Surgery‘ by the respondent No.3, and operated on 10 November 2008

and the follow-up treatment continued under his supervision. It is

stated that the appellant with his wife went to the respondent No.3 on

28 April 2011 for regular quarterly check-up and his wife was advised

to undergo surgery urgently by the respondent No.3 and heeding to his

advice, the operation was performed on 07 May 2011 at the

1LPA

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:31.08.2023

17:58:47

Signature Not Verified

LPA 487/2019

Page 3 of 24

respondent No.4 Hospital but certain unexplained post-surgical

complications ensued, and eventually his wife passed away on 31 May

2011. 3.

The grievance of the appellant is that respondent No.3 had

operated upon his wife without conducting a fresh MRI, and thus he

lodged a complaint dated 07 June 2011 with the respondent No.4

Hospital and in response the respondent No.4 Hospital sent a letter

dated 29 June 2011 to the appellant inter alia stating that ‗all

necessary investigations needed to assess the patient were done‘ and

his wife was posted for surgery after obtaining required clearances and

obtaining the necessary consent. Not satisfied, the appellant sent a

complaint dated 21 July 2011 to the Delhi Medical Council²/

respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action against the respondent

No.3 for medical negligence in the treatment of his wife resulting in

her untimely death.

4.

It is stated that as the DMC was unresponsive to his repeated

reminders, he was constrained to prefer an application under the Right

to I