Failure to Ensure Service of Notice Violates Natural Justice; Directs Fresh Appellate Hearing in Medical Negligence Case

The Petitioner’s father allegedly suffered medical negligence after being prescribed and administered "Encicarb" (Ferric Carboxy Maltose) injections by Respondent doctors between December 2013 and February 2014.

The father filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and a separate professional misconduct complaint before the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Council.

While the NCDRC found Respondents 3, 4, and 5 guilty of negligence and awarded ₹30 lakhs in compensation (a decision upheld by the Supreme Court), the State Medical Council dismissed the misconduct complaint on 12.04.2019.

The Petitioner appealed this dismissal to the Ethics Committee of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI).

On 28.05.2021, the Board of Governors (MCI) passed an order exonerating the doctors.

The Petitioner challenged this order, asserting he was never served notice or heard during the appellate proceedings.

Whether the impugned order dated 28.05.2021 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of an opportunity of hearing afforded to the Petitioner.

Whether the matter requires remittal to the National Medical Commission (NMC) in light of the findings of negligence recorded by the NCDRC and the Supreme Court.

The court applied the fundamental administrative law principle of Audi Alteram Partem (principles of natural justice), which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard, particularly in quasi-judicial appellate proceedings.

The court also acknowledged the transition of regulatory authority from the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, identifying the NMC as the current competent body to adjudicate such appeals.

The Court observed that while the Respondent claimed a notice dated 26.11.2019 was issued for a hearing on 10.12.2019, there was no documentary evidence or proof of service to confirm the Petitioner received it.

It remained uncontroverted that the Petitioner was neither present nor heard before the appeal was closed and the doctors were exonerated.

The Court noted the significant discrepancy between the MCI’s exoneration and the NCDRC’s finding of negligence (affirmed by the Supreme Court), suggesting that the merits of the medical treatment required a fresh, fair evaluation.

Since the MCI was replaced by the NMC during the pendency of the dispute, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was to restore the appellate process to ensure a hearing is provided.

The High Court set aside the order and directed the appropriate committee of the National Medical Commission to conduct a de novo hearing of the appellate proceedings, ensuring a sufficient opportunity for the Petitioner to be heard.

The petition was disposed of without any observations on the merits, leaving all contentions open for the NMC’s determination.