Back
Doctor Siddhartha Buragohain's Registration Suspension Quashed for Denial of Natural Justice by
In a significant ruling reinforcing the procedural safeguards owed to medical professionals, the has quashed a six-month suspension of Dr. Siddhartha Buragohain’s medical registration imposed by the . Justice Kaushik Goswami held that the ’s power under Section 32(D) of the Act, 1999, is in nature, requiring a and a .
The case arose from the tragic death of a patient, Junali Das, who was admitted under Dr. Buragohain’s care at in . Following her death, multiple enquiries were conducted, and the doctor was eventually suspended by the state and then penalized by the Medical Council’s , which withdrew his registration for six months.
The Faulty Process: A Case of ‘Unknown Allegations’
The Court found that the notice issued to Dr. Buragohain by the was fundamentally flawed. It did not specify any particular act or omission that allegedly constituted a violation of medical ethics. The complaints that triggered the enquiry were never furnished to the doctor and were not even traceable in the records.
“The do not contemplate an opportunity to answer an allegation which has not been disclosed,” Justice Goswami observed. “A person cannot be expected to defend himself against an .”
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate , argued that the Council had bypassed the mandatory procedure under , which require a proper enquiry, an , and a finding by a two-thirds majority. He contended that the impugned order was passed during pendency of departmental proceedings and was influenced by directives from the State Government.
Power Cannot Be Exercised Administratively
The State, represented by standing counsel , maintained that the doctor had been given notice and had participated in the proceedings. It relied on a preliminary enquiry report pointing to serious negligence and submitted that the had independently found procedural lapses.
The High Court, however, rejected this defence. It held that the power under Section 32(D) is not a purely administrative function. “The determination of whether a doctor has violated professional ethics, followed by withdrawal of his registration, involves and has serious civil and professional consequences. The function is accordingly in character,” the judgment stated.
The Court underscored that even though the section does not explicitly prescribe a hearing, the are inherent. “The absence of an express provision regarding hearing cannot be understood as excluding the .”
Defective Duty Roster and the Missing Link of Responsibility
A crucial finding was that the enquiry committee itself acknowledged the defective duty-roster system at Jorhat Medical College, noting that after the patient was taken for surgery by another doctor, she was “no longer under the responsibility of Dr. Buragohain.” Yet, the proceeded to hold only the petitioner responsible for failing to provide “responsible management.”
The Court noted that the basis for attributing continuing responsibility to the admitting doctor was never established through any charter of duties or roster. “The Court is not substituting its own view on medical treatment, but the authority failed to disclose the case against the petitioner, consider relevant material, and furnish reasons,” the judgment clarified.
Government Communications Cast a Shadow
The Court also scrutinized communications from the and the , which explicitly requested cancellation of the doctor’s registration. While these were not treated as final orders, the Court observed that they made it “all the more necessary for the to demonstrate an .”
Citing , the Court noted that a “request” from the government to a subordinate authority is tantamount to a direction and cannot be disregarded. The minutes of the meeting showed that it considered these communications, but the final order lacked any discussion of the petitioner’s defence or the reasons for rejecting it.
Speaking Orders Are Not an Empty Formality
The High Court emphasized that an order withdrawing registration must be a . “Reasons provide the link between the material placed before an authority and the conclusion ultimately reached. They enable the affected person to understand why the adverse decision has been taken and enable the constitutional court to ascertain whether the statutory authority has acted within the bounds of law.”
The impugned order simply recorded the finding of guilt and imposed the penalty without addressing the petitioner’s explanations, the defective duty roster, or the involvement of other doctors. This, the Court held, rendered the decision unsustainable.
Balancing Accountability and Fairness
While acknowledging that medical negligence resulting in loss of life must be viewed seriously, Justice Goswami cautioned that the seriousness of the allegation cannot justify giving a go-by to basic procedural requirements. “; they are complementary requirements of a .”
The Court therefore set aside the order dated , but granted liberty to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, with full disclosure of allegations and material, an effective , and a reasoned decision.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “The power exercised under Section 32(D) cannot be treated as a purely administrative power. The determination of whether a doctor has violated professional ethics, followed by withdrawal of his registration, involves and has serious civil and professional consequences.”
- “. The opportunity must be one which enables him to meet the case actually being considered by the decision-making authority.”
- “ is not an empty formality. Reasons provide the link between the material placed before an authority and the conclusion ultimately reached.”
- “The interference is warranted because the decision-making process did not satisfy the power.”
- “; they are complementary requirements of a .”
The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and the records were directed to be returned.
