Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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