Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Per contra, Mr. T Singhdev, learned Counsel for the NMC, submits that Section 22(3) of the Act has to be read harmoniously. He states that it would be against the mandate of Section 30(4) of the Act if a liberal interpretation is given to include any person to file an appeal against an order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
12. Learned Counsel for the NMC states that the instant complaint was filed before the 2019 Act was promulgated and the complaint was primarily filed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. He states that the Rajasthan Medical Council by an Order dated 05.03.2021 in independent proceedings had rejected the complaint of the Appellant and the present appeal was being treated as an independent complaint by the Medical Council of India since the Rajasthan Medical Council was not dealing with the complaint and the same was being dealt with by the Ethics Sub-

13. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants, Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India, Neutral Citation Number of LPA-687/2022 : 2022/DHC/005469 Mr. T Singhdev, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7/National Medical Commission, and perused the material on record.

14. The principal contention of learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants is that Section 22(3) of the Act provides for an appeal by any aggrieved person against the decision of an Autonomous Board to the Commission. Section 30(4) of the Act again restricts filing of an appeal from an order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board only to a medical practitioner or professional. Chapter V of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, deals with Autonomous Boards. Section 16 of the Act reads as under:-