Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Rajesh Singhal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2017
1 WP No.8899 of 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.8899 OF 2017
Dr Rajesh Singhal
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present :-
Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.P. Singh, Government Advocate for the respondents/State
Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Shri Maneesh Kumar Kholiya, Advocate for the respondent
No.5.
ORDER
(Passed on this the 13th day of September, 2017) In the present case, the petitioner who happens to be a doctor is running a Nursing Home in the name & style of "M.R. Singhal Nursing Home and Prasuti Grah" at Rewa, he is aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2016 passed by the respondent No.3/ Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, Bhopal whereby the Ethics cum Disciplinary Committee of Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, Bhopal has held the petitioner guilty 2 WP No.8899 of 2017 of the violation of Regulation No.1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.6, 1.7, 2.4, 6.1, 7.2 & 7.20 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette & Ethics) Regulation 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation of 2002') and has suspended the registration of the petitioner for a period of one year and in pursuance thereof the respondent No.3 has erased the name and registration No.BMC-1134 of the petitioner from the State Medical Register for a period of one year w.e.f. 3.6.2016 to 2.6.2017. The petitioner was directed to deposit his original registration certificate to the M.P. Medical Council. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority i.e. M.C.I., the respondent No.3 herein, who have also upheld the order passed by the Ethics cum Disciplinary Committee vide its order dated 30.5.2017.
2. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint was filed by one Amit Singh Chouhan against the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, Bhopal alleging that the petitioner has committed the medical/professional negligence while giving wrong treatment to his father. It was alleged by the said Amit Singh Chouhan/respondent No.5 that the petitioner misbehaved with him and administered wrong injection to his father which caused his death. The complaint was registered as FIR No.378/12 and an inquiry was also conducted in which the petitioner also submitted his reply but the Medical Council, Bhopal did not find favour with the petitioner and passed the impugned order and in the appeal also the aforesaid order has 3 WP No.8899 of 2017 been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Medical Council of India.
3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter involves the death of one Sher Bahadur Singh who was admitted to petitioner's Nursing Home on 10.11.2012 and subsequently died in the same hospital due to heart failure. It is alleged by the son of the patient that on account of wrong injection administered by the petitioner, his father has died. It was also alleged that the petitioner has posed himself as a Cardiologist and has also written it in his letterheads/ prescription papers without having degree in the said subject and thus he has played a fraud with them. In this respect a police report was also lodged by the complainant before the Police Station, Rewa which was registered as Crime No.61/12 under Sections 304-A, 420, 467, 468 of IPC against the doctor.
4. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that subsequently a notice under section 17 was issued to the petitioner by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council. The petitioner has filed his reply and has also submitted an experience certificate of Sir Gangaram Hospital, Delhi. After recording the statement of the complainant Amit Singh Chouhan as also the petitioner, the order has been passed on 30.05.2016.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed for the reason that the postmortem of the deceased was also conducted, which 4 WP No.8899 of 2017 clearly reveals that he has died due to cardio respiratory failure. The allegation that the petitioner administered a wrong injection cannot be sustained which has been belied by the medical reports submitted by the experts. Even Visra report does not find any poisonous substance which leads to removal of doubt regarding the administration of injection by the petitioner. It is further submitted that after the demise of patient, the private respondent No.5 and his family members also misbehaved with the petitioner and the staff and even the Nursing Home was vandalized. It is further submitted by the counsel that he is protracted by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsak Tatha Chikitsa Seva Se Sambadh Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Vidheyak, 2008 which gave authority to lodge complaint against the private respondent for illegal act but due to demise of the father of the private respondent, the petitioner did not file any FIR against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not violated any clause of the Regulation of 2002 and as such there was no punishment ought to have been awarded to him. It is further submitted that in case of any damage, the private respondent ought to have filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner but instead complaint was filed before the M.P. Medical Council, the forum of which cannot be used to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he is in practice since 1980 and till date no complaint has been filed against him, which shows that he is the person of unimpeachable credential, however on account of the passing of the impugned order, an irreparable loss has also occurred to the 5 WP No.8899 of 2017 petitioner. The petitioner has also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), M.S. (Ortho) Vs V.S. Ramanujam, (2009) 7 SCC 130 and Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2005) 6 SCC 1. It is further submitted that to substantiate the allegations contained in the complaint, no expert evidence was produced before the Committee nor the cognizance of FSL report was taken note of, on this count also no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken all reasonable care as is expected from a doctor and merely because the patient has died due to complications, the doctor cannot be held responsible for the same.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. To understand the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it would be apt to refer to relevant Regulation of 2002 under which the petitioner has been held guilty, the same reads as under :
1.1.1 A physician shall uphold the dignity and honour of his profession.
1.1.2 The prime object of the medical profession is to render service to humanity; reward or financial gain is a subordinate consideration.
Who-so-ever chooses his profession, assumes the obligation to conduct himself in accordance with its ideals. A physician should be an upright man, instructed in the art of healings. He shall keep himself pure in character and be diligent in caring for the sick; he should be modest, sober, Patient, 6 WP No.8899 of 2017 prompt in discharging his duty without anxiety; conducting himself with propriety in his profession and in all the actions of his life.
1.6 Highest Quality Assurance in Patient care:
Every physician should aid in safeguarding the profession against admission to it of those who are deficient in moral character or education. Physician shall not employ in connection with his professional practice any attendant who is neither registered nor enlisted under the Medical Acts in force and shall not permit such persons to attend, treat or perform operations upon Patients wherever professional discretion or skill is required.
1.7 Exposure of Unethical Conduct: A physician should expose, without fear or favour, incompetent or corrupt, dishonest or unethical conduct on the part of members of the profession.
2.4 The Patient must not be neglected: A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He should, however, respond to any request for his assistant in an emergency.
Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the Patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving adequate notice to the Patient and his family. Provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall not willfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his Patient or Patients from necessary medical care.
6.1 Advertising:
7.2 If he/she does not maintain the medical records of his/her indoor Patients for a period of three years as per regulation 1.3 and refuses to provide the same within 72 7 WP No.8899 of 2017 hours when the Patient or his/her authorized representative makes a request for it as per the regulation 1.3.2.
7.20 A physician shall not claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that branch."
8. Thus the only question that remains before this Court is whether the act and inaction attributable to the petitioner can be said to have caused any violation of the aforesaid regulations.
9. None of the respondents has filed the return. However, it is submitted by the counsel that the impugned order is just and proper and does not call for interference. It is further submitted that the Medical Council of India has passed a well reasoned order reflecting upon the merits of the case and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the MCI vide its order dated 30.5.2017.
10. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, Bhopal has passed the order on 30.5.2016 considering the statement of the complainant as well as Dr. Rajesh Singhal, the petitioner herein, and has come to a final conclusion which is as under :
"The Committee found the allegations leveled against the respondent Dr. Rajesh Singhal proved with regard to -
(a) false personation claiming to be Cardiologist without any valid degree and due registration where as is registered with this Council with degrees of MBBS and MD (Medicine);8 WP No.8899 of 2017
(b) the medical record pertaining to the patient is incomplete and the entries related to the patient from 3.30 AM to 7.00 AM are missing which proves that the patient remained unattended by the respondent doctor during the intervening period;
(c) the doctor also is found guilty of medical negligence as far as treatment part is concerned whether be of not attending patient despite of repeated requests of patient's attendants, instructing Ayurvedic Compounder to administer injection claiming to be "Aciloc" (Ranitidine) to the patient on complaint of restlessness for satisfaction of patient which has been negative by the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory New Delhi which proves that some unknown medicine was injected which turned fatal causing death of patient immediate after intra mascular injection.
Therefore Committee found respondent doctor guilty of violations of Regulation No.1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.6, 1.7, 2.4, 6.1, 7.2, 7.20 of India Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette & Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and accordingly decides to suspend the Registration of respondent doctor for a period of one year."
11. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the matter was referred to the appellate authority constituted under the Medical Council of India and it was considered by the Ethics Committee at its meeting held on 27th & 28th February, 2017, which made the following observations :
"....
The Ethics Committee further considered the matter and after perusing the statements of the 9 WP No.8899 of 2017 concerned and the documents available in record, the Ethics Committee discussed the matter in detail and after detailed deliberation noted that the original complainant Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan and respondent Dr. Rajesh Singhal, approached separately at MCI.
Sh. Amit Singh's Appeal No.23 of 2016 and Dr. Rajesh Singhal's Appeal No.25 of 2016. Both the appeals were clubbed together and after hearing, the original complainant Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan and Dr. Rajesh Singhal and after investigating the matter, the Ethics Committee is of the unanimous opinion that Dr. Rajesh Singhal of M.R. Singhal Nursing Home & Prasooti Grih, Rewa, M.P. is found to be guilty of violation of Clause - 1.1.1, 1.1.2 of Ethics regulations namely the "Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette & Ethics) Regulations 2002". Therefore, the Ethics Committee decided to upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, to remove the name of Dr. Rajesh Singhal from the Indian Medical Register for a period of ONE YEAR. The period of punishment will be effective from the date of communication and whatsoever period of punishment he has already completed is to be deducted from the punishment period of removal of his name from IMR."
12. This Court has carefully gone through the record of the case and has formed an opinion that from the aforesaid findings recorded by both the authorities/Ethical Committees which are well equipped with expertise to supervise the conduct of Dr. Rajesh Singhal, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by either of them in passing the order against the petitioner and by removing his name from the Indian Medical Register for a period of one year.
10 WP No.8899 of 201713. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Medical Council of India has given a clean chit to the petitioner so far as clauses 1.6, 1.7, 2.4, 6.1, 7.2 and 7.20 are concerned, the same cannot be accepted as the Ethics Committee of Medical Council of India has simply recorded that the petitioner is guilty of violation of clause 1.1.1 & 1.1.2 of the Regulations 2002. So far as other clauses are concerned, it is silent about them but this Court finds that other clauses are incidental and are connected to the aforesaid two clauses 1.1.1 & 1.1.2 and even if these clauses are not specifically mentioned in the order passed by the appellate authority, it cannot be said to be a finding recorded by the appellate committee that the petitioner is given a clean chit under the aforesaid clauses.
14. So far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, under the facts and circumstances of the case, no benefit can be availed by the petitioner from the decisions of the aforesaid cases.
15. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge 13/09/2017 DV