Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: singhdev in Dr Rupali Mishra vs The National Medical Commission on 29 November, 2024Matching Fragments
11. On the other hand, Mr. Singhdev, counsel for Respondent opposes the petition and states that the registration of the Medical centre being in the name of the Petitioner necessarily entails closure of the facility till her name is restored on the State Medical Register.
12. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In light of the facts of the present case, the court would have to consider whether the punitive actions directed in terms of the medical centre itself are justified and proportionate to the misconduct involved. The legal framework governing medical ethics and medical facility operations must also be carefully scrutinized to determine if the National Medical Commission's decision is within the statutory and regulatory provisions.
14. Issue notice. Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
15. Re-notify on 29th November, 2024.
W.P.(C) 10560/2024
16. The Petitioner is directed to take the necessary steps to implead the patient/complainant, as a party to the present petition.
17. Issue notice. Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent.
18. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.