Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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