Dr. Neena Raizada vs. Medical Council Of INDIA Through Its Secretary & Ors

W.P.(C)/13499/2019HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01049692201919 October 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD12 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena, Mr. Abhinav Saxena and Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Anum Hussain, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Sugandha Anand and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocates for R-4

AI SummaryDismissed

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that Regulation 7.7 exclusively prescribes removal from the medical register as the sole punishment is not acceptable. Regulation 7.7 states that a practitioner who signs an untrue, misleading, or improper certificate is liable to have their name deleted from the register. However, this does not mean that removal is the only punishment. Regulation 8.2, on the other hand, explicitly grants the Medical Council the power to award "such punishment as deemed necessary," which can include permanent or temporary removal from the register. Therefore, a warning is a permissible punishment under Regulation 8.2. The Court found no merit in the writ petition, dismissing it. The judgment also referenced a Kerala High Court judgment concerning the interpretation of "be liable" in the context of GST, but this appears to be an analogy rather than a direct application to the medical ethics regulations.

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Neena Raizada, a complainant, alleged misconduct against Dr. Ravi Kumar and Dr. Arti Lalchandani for issuing a certificate on July 9, 2014, without examining her. The UP State Medical Council warned the doctors against issuing such certificates without patient examination. Dissatisfied, the petitioner appealed to the Medical Council of India (MCI). The MCI's Ethics Committee investigated, heard both parties, and found the doctors guilty of professional misconduct under Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The MCI upheld the UP State Medical Council's warning, stating there was no infirmity in its order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the MCI's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, exclusively prescribes removal from the medical register as the sole punishment for issuing an untrue, misleading, or improper certificate, thereby invalidating a warning issued by the Medical Council. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Regulation 7.7 only contemplates removal from the medical register as the punishment and does not provide for a warning. Therefore, the warning issued by the MCI was not a permissible punishment under this regulation. Respondent's contention: The respondent (National Medical Commission, successor to MCI) contended that Regulation 8.2 of the same Regulations grants the Medical Council the power to award any punishment deemed necessary, which can include removal from the register, but is not limited to it. They relied on Regulation 8.2 to support the issuance of a warning as a valid disciplinary action.

Sections Cited

Regulation 7.7, Regulation 8.2

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

W.P.(C) 13499/2019 Page 1 of 12 $~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19th OCTOBER, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: + W.P.(C) 13499/2019 DR. NEENA RAIZADA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena, Mr. Abhinav Saxena and Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Anum Hussain, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Sugandha Anand and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Medical Council of India issuing a warning to Dr. Ravi Kumar and Dr. Arti Lalchandani not to issue any opinion letters without seeing the patients.

The Petitioner herein is the complainant. The Petitioner approached the UP State Medical Council alleging misconduct on the part of one Dr. Arti Lalchandani and Dr. Ravi Kumar for issuing a

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.