Rajesh Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.08.2020 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Board of Governors in supersession of the Medical Council of India, pursuant to which Respondent No. 3 was exonerated of the charges in the appeal preferred against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Delhi Medical Council.

Briefly, the petitioner alleges that on 14.01.2015, his daughter complained of blurred vision with watery eye. On histopathological examination, Respondent No. 4 diagnosed the petitioner’s daughter with medulloblastoma, and the petitioner’s daughter underwent neurosurgical procedures and radiotherapy. However, subsequent histopathological reviews by Fortis Memorial Hospital, Medanta Hospital and the expert review of the Delhi Medical Council identified features of Choroid Plexus Papilloma, WHO Grade I, giving rise to allegations of incorrect diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. The petitioner’s daughter passed away on 11.08.2018. Thereafter, in the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the Delhi Medical Council recorded adverse findings concerning the histopathological diagnosis and recommended removal of Respondent No. 3’s name from the medical register.

Subsequently, in the appeal preferred by Respondent No.3 before the Medical Council of India, the Ethics Committee recommended the exoneration of Respondent No. 3 noting that the patient did have a medulloblastoma and the same was diagnosed by Respondent No. 3. The said recommendation was approved by the Board of Governors on 09.03.2020. Thereafter, by impugned order, Respondent No. 3 stood exonerated of the charge of medical negligence.

The petitioner claims to have continuously pursued his grievance before various authorities and sought the relevant records through RTI proceedings. The petitioner has now instituted the present petition on 29.10.2026 challenging the impugned order. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was ever served to him, and he was not given an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed.

After meticulously scrutinizing the factual matrix and the record, there can be little doubt that the circumstances giving birth to the present petition are unfortunate, and the Court is conscious of the anguish with which the present petition would have been preferred. However, being conscious and sympathetic to the petitioner’s predicament, the question before this Court is whether the impugned order rendered on 28.08.2020 ought to be reopened in exercise of discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after a passage of more than six years.

At the outset, as noted above, the principal grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was ever served to him and he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Having taken note of the contention of the petitioner, it is however pertinent to note that the record does not per se indicate that the petitioner’s complaint was ignored or not subjected to adequate consideration.

The grievance of the petitioner regarding absence of service and opportunity of hearing, though may not be entirely without substance, must nonetheless be examined in the totality of circumstances. As is apparent from the record, the proceedings refer to a communication dated 21.01.2020 whereby the parties including the petitioner, were directed to be present for personal hearing along with reply and other documents on 01.02.2020. Though the petitioner claims to not have been present contending that he was not served, the Committee, before coming to a decision, took into consideration the original complaint preferred by the petitioner along with the findings and material of the Delhi Medical Council forming part of the record. Infact, as the record reveals, after having appreciated the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the Committee also duly considered the findings rendered by the Delhi Medical Council and the material preferred in appeal before recommending exoneration of Respondent No.3.

In the totality of circumstances thus, while the Court duly appreciates and is cognizant of the grievance that the petitioner was not personally afforded the opportunity at the appellate stage, from the material on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s complaint was altogether excluded from consideration or that the record establishes such prejudice as would, at this distant point of time, warrant reopening of the concluded proceedings. The requirement of natural justice though undoubtedly important cannot, especially after a passage of six years, be considered in isolation and must be considered in juxtaposition with the other material on record.

While this Court is conscious that delay and laches are not to be applied as inflexible rules considering that no period of limitation governs the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such exercise remains discretionary and the party seeking interference must approach the Court with reasonable promptitude.

Even otherwise, as noted above, the facts of the present case do not demonstrate any prejudice as to compel this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this belated juncture.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, and the present petition is therefore dismissed.

The petitioner however shall remain at liberty to avail such other remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law. It is further clarified that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the proceedings, and the same shall be considered independently by the competent forum, subject to all permissible objections in law.

The present writ petition along with pending applications stand disposed of.