The Delhi High Court in the case Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary and Ors. observed wherein the challenge is brought against improper issuance of medical certificate by 2 doctors.
The court in the case held hat removing their names from the rolls of Medical Council of India’s register, MCI rolls was not the only punishment that could be given.
the bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case observed and has stated while interpreting Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 that the removal of the name of doctor’s from MCI rolls for issuing improper certificate was only one of the possible punishments, but not the only.
In the present case, the writ plea is moved by the petitioner or complainant against Dr. Arati Lalchandani and Dr. Ravi Kumar, former President and Hony. Secretary of Indian Medical Association, IIMA Kanpur respectively.
Therefore, the certificate has been issued by Dr. Lalchandani and Dr. Kumar in respect of the petitioner, without examining her.
The grievance of the petitioner was that MCI had let the 2 doctors off with only a warning to not issue any opinion letters without seeing patients.
The present matter was initially before the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council, which observed that the 2 doctors should not have given the opinion of them on the official letterhead of IMA, Kanpur without examining the patient personally.
However, the petitioner made an appeal against UP Medical Council’s order, wherefore Committee of Medical Council of India observed that the 2 doctors’ conduct amounted to professional misconduct and they were guilty of violation of Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council, the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulations, 2002.
The court also referred to the case Sukh Dev v. State of U.P. and State Tax Officer, Investigation Branch-I & Ors. v. Y Balakrishnan, wherein the court held that the punishment prescribed under Regulation 7.7 was not excluded by implication from powers given to the Medical Council under Regulation 8.2. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena, Mr. Abhinav Saxena and Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari appeared for petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Anum Hussain, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur represented the respondent No.1 (Medical Council of India). The counsel, Advocates Ms. Sugandha Anand and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava appeared for respondent No.4.