It’s Not That The Only Punishment For Doctor Is Removal Of Name From MCI’s Rolls Of Register: Delhi HC In Misleading Medical Certificate Case
|The Delhi High Court has held that it is not that the only punishment that can be given to a Doctor is removal of his/her name from the rolls of register of Medical Council of India (MCI) for giving misleading medical certificate.
The Court was dealing with a case in which the petitioner challenged the order passed by the MCI whereby it issued a warning to two doctors not to issue any opinion letter without seeing the patients.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “The contention of the Petitioner that the only penalty which can be imposed on a Doctor who gives a certificate which is untrue, misleading or improper is the removal of the name of the Doctor from the rolls of the register of Medical Council cannot be accepted. Regulation 7.7 only postulates that a Doctor who gives an untrue, misleading or improper certificate can be removed from the rolls of the register of Medical Council. However, it does not mean that that the only punishment that can be given to such a Doctor is the removal of the name from the rolls of the register of Medical Council.”
Advocate Trilok Nath Saxena represented the petitioner while Advocates T. Singhdev, Aabhaas Sukhramani, and Sugandha Anand represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner was the complainant who had approached the U.P. State Medical Council alleging misconduct on the part of two doctors for issuing a certificate. The allegation of the complainant, who herself was a doctor, was that the said two doctors issued the certificate even without examining the complainant/petitioner. The U.P. State Medical Council warned the said doctors not to issue certificates or opinions without examining the patients and the said decision was challenged by the complainant before the Medical Council of India.
The MCI passed an order impugned herein after examining the petitioner, who was a doctor herself and MD in Anesthesia, and after examining the concerned doctors. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, does not postulate any punishment by way of warning rather the only punishment which is stipulated under the Regulations is of removal of the Doctor from the rolls of the Medical Council.
The High Court while referring to the case of Sukh Dev v. State of U.P. 2017 SCC OnLine All 2992 said, “Though this case deals with an offence under the IPC, the same principle can be followed while construing the scope and ambit of Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.”
The Court further noted that the Regulation 8.2 deals with punishments that can be imposed on a Doctor for his professional misconduct and the Regulation 8.2 gives power to the Medical Council to impose any punishment as is deemed necessary which can also include the removal of the name of the Doctor from the rolls of the register of Medical Council permanently or for a specified period.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7792)