Title:Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors.
Decided on: 19th October, 2023
W.P.(C) 13499/2019
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad
Introduction
The Delhi High Court ruled recently in a petition against the illegal issue of a medical certificate by two doctors that their names should not be removed from the Medical Council of India’s record (MCI rolls).
Facts of the Case
Without doing an examination, it was reportedly stated that doctors Lalchandani and Kumar had provided a certificate regarding the petitioner. The petitioner’s complaint was that MCI had dismissed the two physicians with merely a warning to refrain from writing opinion letters before consulting with patients. The two doctors were initially brought before the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council, which made the observation that they shouldn’t have provided their “opinion” on the official letterhead of IMA, Kanpur, without first seeing the patient.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the UP Medical Council, and as a result, the Indian Medical Council Committee noted that the two doctors had engaged in professional misconduct and had violated Regulation 7.7 of the 2002 Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations.
Courts analysis and decision
Simply put, Regulation 7.7 states that any licenced medical practitioner whose name is “liable” can be removed from the Register for signing or providing an invalid certificate. Contrarily, Regulation 8.2 states that in the event that a medical professional is found guilty of professional misconduct, the relevant Medical Council may impose any necessary sanctions or even remove the practitioner’s name from the Register (either permanently or for a predetermined amount of time).
The Court noted, “From a perusal of the Rules it cannot be said that for the misconduct as prescribed in Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, the only penalty that can be levied is one of removal from the rolls and that the penalty stipulated in Regulation 7.7 is excluded by implication from powers given to the Medical Board in Regulation 8.2. The penalty may extend to removal of the practitioner from the rolls altogether or for a specified time as prescribed in Regulation 8.2 & 8.3.”
Following an analysis of the provisions and the rulings in State Tax Officer, Investigation Branch-I & Ors. v. Y Balakrishnan and Sukh Dev v. State of U.P., the court determined that the penalty specified in Regulation 7.7 was not implicitly excluded from the authority granted to the Medical Council under Regulation 8.2. The petition was denied because it had no merit.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan
