$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10535/2021 Date of Decision: 19.02.2026 DRON MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

versus NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr.

Tanishq Srivastava and Mr. Vedant Sood, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Nishaank Mattoo, Mr. Naman Kr. Thakur, Ms. Charu Kumar and Mr.

Utkarsh, Advocates for R-2.

Dr. Sunil Khattri, Ms. Priyana Gupta and Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Advs. for R-3.

Mr. Kunal Kher, Advocate for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. This matter was earlier called out on 12.02.2026, and none had appeared for respondent no.4, therefore the hearing was deferred. The order dated 12.02.2026 is extracted hereunder:-

1. It appears that against some of the doctors, findings have been recorded by the National Commission of Disputes Redressal Committee („NCDRC‟), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

2. In view thereof, coupled with the factum that the petition was not heard by the erstwhile Medical Council of India, the Court is of the opinion that the matter should be remitted back to the appropriate committee of the National Medical Commission for its reconsideration. 3. Since, respondent no. 4 is not appearing, in the interest of justice, hearing stands adjourned till 19.02.2026.

2. Despite sufficient opportunity given, none appears for R-4. However all the other respondents are represented for by their respective counsel.

3. The controversy in the instant case emanates from passing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2021 by the Board of Governor on Medical Counsel of India by the erstwhile Board of Medical Council of India. The sole grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order dated 28.05.2021 has been passed without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner herein is that, his father is a victim of medical negligence, and against the same, the petitioner seems to have filed the complaint against the respondent doctors before the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Council.

5. The petitioner submits that his father, on experiencing a complaint of blood urine, vomiting etc, had visited the OPD of Dr. Sandeep Agarwal on 08.12.2013. Thereupon, certain medication was prescribed by the concerned doctor. It is submitted that he again visited the said doctor on 09.12.2013 and also between 10.12.2013 to 17.12.2013, Dr. Muffazal Ahmed had pointed out certain health complications to the petitioner, and accordingly, dialysis was advised.

6. In the meantime, the respondent No.3 and 4 prescribed iron injection, more particularly, Encicarb Injections (Ferric Carboxy Maltose) injections to the patient, which were administered to the patient between 11.12.2013 to

22.02.2013. The patient was ultimately discharged on 17.12.2013.

7. It is further submitted that the health condition of the petitioner worsened and therefore, he had to take further medical treatment from various medical institutions. Against the alleged negligence in the treatment done, the father of the petitioner filed a consumer complaint being No. CC/998/2015 before the Consumer Commission on 05.09.2015, and a separate complaint before the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Council on

08.01.2016 against the Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5.

8. The complaint was dismissed by the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council on 12.04.2019. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the erstwhile Medical Council of India. The said appeal was considered by the ethics Committee of MCI. The impugned order exonerates the doctors.

9. The petitioner therefore is aggrieved by the same, and hence approached this Court. The solitary point raised by the petitioner is with respect to not being afforded an opportunity of hearing before the concerned forum prior to the closing of the appeal.

10. On merits, the petitioner places reliance on the ord