Rajesh Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~85
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 05 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010540592026
+ W.P.(C) 16626/2026, CM APPL. 77873/2026, CM APPL.
77874/2026
RAJESH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Choudhary,
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Bhurji,
Mr. Abhishek Tyagi, Advs.
with Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. 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.
2. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. After meticulously scrutinizing the factual matrix and the
record, there can be little doubt that the circumstances giving birth to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

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.
6. 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.
7. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise
its writ jurisdiction, and the present petition is therefore dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

12. 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.
13. The present writ petition along with pending applications stand
disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
“hkaur”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15