In the Matter at hand, Dr Pramod Batra v. Medical Council of India a writ petition contesting an order dated 20-03-2010 issued by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India ordering the temporary removal of the petitioner’s name from the Indian Medical Register was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by a practising radiologist. On May 12, 2007, a gynaecologist at Krishna Medical Centre received a complaint of intermittent vaginal bleeding from a woman who was 21 years old. The patient was identified as having an unavoidable abortion with bleeding and had additional operations planned. The gynaecologist carried out the surgical portion of the procedure, while the petitioner assisted the USG as needed. Immediately after being transferred to Safdarjung Hospital, the patient passed away and was pronounced brought dead. The patient’s family members accused KMC of malpractice. The Delhi Medical Council also charged the petitioner with carelessness. Before the police and DMC, the petitioner changed his story, stating that the gynaecologist at KMC had falsified records to show that the petitioner had performed the USG operation twice. The petitioner had only signed once for the USG examination, the court discovered after reviewing the medical file. The patient, however, looked to be very ill and fainted. After being pronounced dead, her husband brought her to Safdarjung Hospital. All three of the attending doctors were found accountable for medical negligence by the DMC ruling of 4-02-2008. The petitioner appealed the DMC’s decision, and the MCI’s Ethics Committee upheld the DMC’s decision to strike all three physicians’ names from the State Medical Register. The MCI Executive Committee forwarded the issue to the Ethics Committee for further review, but the committee maintained its original position to have their names removed for a period of three months. Through the exceptional authority of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court disputed the ruling; however, when notice was given in the current case, the High Court stopped the order’s implementation.
Analysis of court verdict
The doctor was never given the opportunity to argue against record-keeping fraud but rather medical negligence, which the petitioner had previously been cleared of by MCI, according to the single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court led by Justice C. Chandra, who overturned the abovementioned verdict.
The significance of record falsification, a felony with criminal intent, was emphasised by the court. The order must be accurate enough to defend against fabrication, and the doctor must be informed before making such a determination. The Court discovered that the MCI had verified the record-falsification accusation that had never been made against the petitioner in the first place and had only been brought up to support punishment. The MCI’s decision to remove a doctor’s name from the Indian Medical Register, which has significant familial and social repercussions, was criticised by the Court. The court criticised the arbitrary targeting of doctors as well, saying that it is unfair to the general public. The order issued by MCI on March 20, 2010, was overturned by the court because it didn’t adequately address the issue of record-keeping fraud or the sanction imposed.
CASE NAME – Dr Pramod Batra v. Medical Council of India, CWP No. 2242/ 2010