Gujarat High Court
Ajay O Pandey vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17068 of 2025
==========================================================
AJAY O PANDEY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV K LAKHWANI(9520) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 27/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"A. Admit and allow this Petition;
B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (Annexure A), to the extent it holds Petitioner guilty of professional negligence and directs his suspension from practice and removal of his name from the Register of Gujarat State Council for Physiotherapy for a period of two months and further direct the Respondent no.1 and 2 to restore the name of the Petitioner to the Register and permit him to continue practicing as a Physiotherapist without any interruption;
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, stay the operation, implementation, execution and effect of the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (Annexure - A) and further permit the Petitioner to continue practicing as a registered physiotherapist without interruption; and Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026 undefined D. Pass an ex-parte ad-interm order in respect of the prayer 'C' above;
E. Pass such other order(s) as this Ho'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered physiotherapist and has been practicing for over 17 years. He runs physiotherapy clinic staffed with qualified and registered physiotherapists. The respondent No.3 filed a complaint alleging professional negligence against the petitioner in respect of his mother Mrs. Lajwantiben Khatri who was a patient suffering from multiple chronic conditions and was being treated under his supervision. The mother of the respondent No.3 had visited the petitioner's clinic for physiotherapy consultation with a prior appointment made by the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the patient was informed about the medical treatment and the medical condition of the patient was also explained in detail to the respondent No.3. That during the sessions, a full assessment and treatment plan came to be prepared, recorded and maintained as part of the clinical file. The patient showed steady improvement and on 18.01.2025, during a routine, low-intensity physiotherapy session undertaken by Dr. Yash Patel, a cracking sound was heard during passive shoulder movement, which revealed a sign of fracture. The patient was promptly referred to the Hospital, where the x-ray confirmed a spinal fracture. That thereafter, the respondent No.3 filed a complaint on 28.01.2025 before the respondent No.2 Gujarat State Council of Physiotherapy (GSCPT). The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 28.02.2025. That the petitioner was afforded a hearing on 30.04.2025 by the respondent No.2. By the order dated 23.07.2025, the respondent Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026 undefined No.2 passed a punitive order directing removal of the petitioner's name from the Register of the respondent No.2 for a period of six months. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal on 18.08.2025 before the respondent No.1 National Commission. That on 21.11.2025, the National Commission passed the impugned order, whereby the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 State Commission came to be modified and six months' suspension period came to be reduced to two months. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had placed on record all the material data to show that there was no negligence on his part or on the part of his clinic and that the patient was fully aware of the treatment and the risk involved in the physiotherapy sessions. It is submitted that the patient had underwent seven sessions and the unfortunate incident happened in the eight session of physiotherapy. Such participation constitutes clear implied and informed consent. He submits that the findings rendered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 is also bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Section 36(4) of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 and in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 came to be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further, the impugned order is de-hors any reason. He submits that no reasons are recorded for rejecting the submissions. He submits that the impugned order is, therefore, bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026 undefined
4. Per contra, the respondent No.3 Mr. Kishore Girdharilal Khatri, who appears as party-in-person, submits that the petitioner was running the physiotherapy clinic and at the same time, he was the Principal in Physiotherapy College. He submits that he was neither informed about the risk involved in physiotherapy treatment to his mother, nor any expressed or oral consent was taken. He submits that his mother has suffered physical pain and also incurred expenses due to negligence on the part of Dr. Yash Patel who was treating his mother under the supervision of the petitioner herein. The respondent No.3 further submits that the State Commission as well as the National Commission have taken into consideration all the documents on record and have come to the definite conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for professional negligence since he had not obtained written informed consent prior to treatment and also failed to conduct a sufficiently detailed assessment including review of the patient's medical history and pre-existing conditions. He submits that the Commission has also held that there is a significant deviation from clinical protocol and adherence to the professional guidelines by the petitioner as well as Dr. Yash Patel. He submits that the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the State Commission as well as the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the National Commission are reasoned orders based on the documents available on record and after taking into consideration the medical history of the patient. He submits that the present Special Civil Application be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 in person.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026 undefined
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 State Commission has afforded proper hearing to the petitioner on 30.04.2025. Proper procedure was followed and thereafter, the State Commission has held that the petitioner is guilty for professional negligence. Accordingly, the State Commission passed a punitive order removing the name of the petitioner from the register for a period of six months. It was further observed that the name of the petitioner shall be restored to the said register upon payment of Rs.5000/- after expiry of the period of six months. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 National Commission. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 clearly shows that no hearing has been afforded to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 National Commission. Para 2 of the order observes that the National Commission has made detailed review of the appeal and carefully considered the submissions and thereafter, has concluded that the incident in question was not deliberate, intentional or malicious. The event occurred during the course of routine physiotherapy treatment and the therapist's primary intention was to support the patient's recovery and overall well- being. The respondent No.1 National Commission has also held that failure to obtain written informed consent prior to treatment and failure to conduct a sufficiently detailed assessment including review of the patient's medical history and pre-existing conditions constituted professional negligence. The petitioner's suspension from practice was reduced to a period of two months and the appeal came to be disposed of. Consequent to the impugned order dated 21.11.2025, the State Commission, by the communication dated 24.11.2025, has removed the petitioner's name from the register of the respondent No.2 Council from 01.12.2025 to 31.01.2026.
Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026 undefined 7. Section 36(4) of the Act, 2021 reads thus :-
"(4) A person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the communication of such order, prefer an appeal to the Commission and, after giving an opportunity of being heard, the Commission shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of filing of such appeal, pass such order as it thinks fit"
8. The above provision contemplates that the aggrieved person shall prefer an appeal within 30 days to the National Commission, which shall give an opportunity of hearing within a period of 90 days from the date of filing of such appeal. In the present case, admittedly, no hearing has been given to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 National Commission has reviewed the appeal and considered the submissions. Such exercise is not sufficient to constitute and substitute the opportunity of being heard as provided in Section 36(4) of the Act, 2021. The impugned order is also in breach of principles of natural justice. Section 36(4) mandates for granting an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the respondent No.1 National Commission for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The National Commission shall give due and effective hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions as available in law. The respondent No.1 National Commission shall adjudicate all the contentions so raised by the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order dealing with all such contentions. The respondent No.3 is also at liberty to file appropriate application before the National Commission in the appeal, which may be considered on its own merits.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17068/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026 undefined
9. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no opinion is expressed thereon. The National Commission shall decide the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the Special Civil Application stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 03 20:32:06 IST 2026