Assessor Appointed U/S 18 Karnataka Medical Registration Act Is Not An Adjudicating Authority: Karnataka HC

The Bench dismissed a petition filed by a wife challenging the orders of the Karnataka Medical Council’s (KMC) rejection of her application to appoint an Expert Committee to examine her husband, who was suffering from a porencephalic cyst (missing brain).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The Advocate appointed is only as an Assessor and not an adjudicating authority in terms of Section 18. Therefore, there can be no question of his recusal in the proceedings. No fault can be found with the reason rendered by the Council to reject the application.”

Advocate Gopi Karunakaran represented the petitioner, while Advocate Ratna N.Shivayogimath appeared for the respondents.

The KMC submitted before the Court that they had followed the necessary quorum for conducting the proceedings. The Husband contended that the reason for the wife to file the application before KMC was for “wanting to project a marital dispute before the Council.”

The High Court pointed out that a co-ordinate Bench had earlier observed that the wife was justified in arguing that private disputes between the parties were irrelevant when the issue related to professional efficiency. “In the light of this observation becoming final, this Court would not venture into consideration of the case of the husband that it is abuse of the process of law,” the Court stated.

The Bench pointed out that the second application was made by the wife concerning the referral of the husband's problem to a Committee of Neurologists or Neurosurgeons from NIMHANS or AIMS as she believed the inquiry was not proceeding correctly. It was further noted that although the proceedings were ongoing, with the wife having completed examination-in-chief and being cross-examined, the CT scan relied upon dated back to 2004.

The Court observed, “When 20 years have passed by with the alleged problem of the husband, at least one complaint should have emerged from any patient whom the husband has treated. It is an admitted fact by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no complaint by any patient for the last 26 years of the husband’s practice. Therefore, at this juncture reference of the case of the husband to a Committee of neurosurgeons for the asking of the petitioner would not arise.”

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the petition.

Cause Title: Dr. X v. Karnataka Medical Council & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Gopi Karunakaran

Respondents: Advocates Ratna N.Shivayogimath and Ajay Kadkol

Click here to read/download the Order