District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Medical Ethics Ruling: Court Upholds Authority to Impose Penalties Beyond Removal from Medical Council Rolls: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on medical ethics, the High Court of Delhi, on October 19, 2023, upheld the authority of the Medical Council to impose penalties on doctors beyond the removal of their names from the Medical Council rolls. The judgment came in response to a petition challenging a warning issued by the Medical Council of India to two doctors.

The court, in its observation, noted, “It cannot be said that for the misconduct prescribed in Regulation 7.7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, the only penalty that can be levied is one of removal from the rolls.” This ruling clarifies that the Medical Council possesses the discretion to impose a range of penalties on doctors found guilty of professional misconduct.

The case involved a complaint against Dr. Arti Lalchandani and Dr. Ravi Kumar for issuing a certificate without conducting a patient examination. The UP State Medical Council had initially warned the doctors not to issue such certificates without examination, a decision challenged by the complainant before the Medical Council of India.

The court’s decision also cited relevant legal precedents, including the interpretation of the term “liable” in statutes. It emphasized that the word “liable” does not convey an absolute obligation but rather a possibility of attracting liability.

This ruling reaffirms the Medical Council’s authority to take disciplinary actions against doctors who breach professional conduct standards, including but not limited to removal from the Medical Council rolls. The court’s judgment sets an important precedent in the realm of medical ethics and professional accountability.

Date of Decision: 19 October 2023

NEENA RAIZADA    vs MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19_Oct_2023_Dr_Neena_Vs_Medical_Council.pdf"]

Latest Legal News