Assam HC quashes six-month registration withdrawal against doctor, says Medical Council must disclose allegations and pass a reasoned order

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, admitted Junali Das at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital on 16 July 2017 with intrauterine foetal death. After the petitioner’s duty ended on 17 July, the patient was attended by several other doctors, labour induction was attempted over four days, and an LSCS was performed by another doctor on 21 July. The patient developed complications and died on 22 July 2017.

Following departmental and medical enquiries, the Assam Council of Medical Registration’s Ethical Committee found the petitioner guilty of failing to maintain good medical practice and physician duties under the Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002, and withdrew his registration for six months under Section 32(D) of the Assam Medical Council Act, 1999.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 7 September 2018, contending that the Council had failed to comply with the statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice.

Whether the Ethical Committee was competent to withdraw the petitioner’s medical registration under Section 32(D) of the Assam Medical Council Act, 1999.

Whether the withdrawal of registration was imposed in accordance with the statutory framework and the principles of natural justice.

Whether the Ethical Committee’s decision was supported by relevant material, independent application of mind and adequate reasons.

Section 23 of the Assam Medical Council Act, 1999 empowers the Council to remove a registered practitioner’s name from the Register, either permanently or for a specified period, but expressly requires compliance with the safeguards in Section 17(b), including a due enquiry, an opportunity of hearing and the prescribed majority finding.

Section 32(D) empowers the Ethical Committee to withdraw a doctor’s registration for a period determined by it upon finding a violation of medical ethics, but the absence of a prescribed procedure does not exclude natural justice.

Since withdrawal of registration has serious civil and professional consequences, the power is quasi-judicial and must be exercised fairly, objectively and through a reasoned, speaking order.

The Court relied on A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, and Ridge v. Baldwin for the duty to act fairly and provide an effective hearing, and on Gorkha Security Services v. Government of NCT of Delhi for the requirement that a notice must disclose the precise case to be met.

It also applied Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Secretary (Food and Agriculture), Government of Andhra Pradesh, holding that a governmental “request” to a subordinate authority may operate as a direction, thereby requiring the statutory authority to demonstrate independent consideration.

The Court held that although Section 32(D) conferred substantive power on the Ethical Committee, its exercise was quasi-judicial and required an effective opportunity of defence and a reasoned determination.

The notice to the petitioner merely required him to appear with documents and submit a written statement; it did not specify the alleged ethical violation, the particular acts or omissions relied upon, or provide the complaints forming the basis of the proceedings.

The authority treated the petitioner’s status as the admitting doctor as creating continuing responsibility, but neither disclosed that case adequately nor produced a duty charter, roster or other material establishing such responsibility after his duty ended.

The enquiry report itself recorded that different doctors treated the patient, that the duty-roster system was defective, that responsibility shifted to another doctor when the LSCS was decided, and that the patient was no longer under the petitioner’s responsibility after surgery.

The Ethical Committee failed to reconcile these findings, failed to consider an earlier hospital enquiry report which found no negligence by the doctors and staff, did not address the petitioner’s defence, and issued an unreasoned order.

In view of the prior governmental communications seeking cancellation of registration, the absence of demonstrable independent application of mind further undermined the decision-making process.

The order withdrawing the petitioner’s registration for six months was accordingly set aside and quashed.

The competent authority was permitted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, provided that the petitioner is furnished with specific allegations and relied-upon material, given a meaningful opportunity of defence, and the matter is independently decided by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on whether the petitioner was medically negligent or guilty of professional misconduct on the merits.

The writ petition was allowed without costs.