Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court addressed a petition filed by a doctor-wife challenging the rejection of her application by the Karnataka Medical Council. The petitioner sought to appoint an Expert Committee to examine her husband, also a doctor, who she claimed was diagnosed with a porencephalic cyst (missing brain). Despite the dismissal of her petition, the court left the issue open for future consideration.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued for the appointment of an Expert Committee, citing the complexity of her husband’s medical condition. She contended that the Council lacked the expertise to assess such a condition accurately. Additionally, she sought the recusal of a retired District Judge participating in the proceedings, asserting his inability to adjudicate the matter.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The Medical Council refuted the petitioner’s claims, asserting compliance with legal procedures and dismissing her allegations as baseless. The husband contended that the petitioner delayed her complaint until their marital discord emerged in 2016, despite the alleged diagnosis in 2004. He emphasized his reputable medical career and the absence of patient complaints over 26 years.

Court’s Findings:

The court cited Section 18 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, clarifying that the Assessor appointed was not an adjudicating authority. Therefore, there was no basis for his recusal, and the Council’s decision was deemed valid.

The court deemed the petitioner’s request for a Committee unnecessary, given the lengthy duration since the alleged diagnosis and the absence of patient complaints. It concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds for the Committee’s appointment.