Father’s Six-Year-Late Challenge To Doctor’s Exoneration Over Daughter’s Disputed Tumour Diagnosis Rejected, No Prejudice Shown: Delhi HC

The petitioner challenged a 28 August 2020 order of the Board of Governors, which exonerated Respondent No. 3 from charges following an appeal against the Delhi Medical Council’s 5 September 2019 order.

The complaint arose from the diagnosis and treatment of the petitioner’s daughter, who was initially diagnosed with medulloblastoma; later reviews identified features of Choroid Plexus Papilloma, WHO Grade I.

The Delhi Medical Council made adverse findings and recommended removal of Respondent No. 3’s name from the medical register.

On appeal, the Ethics Committee recommended exoneration, relying on the view that the patient had medulloblastoma, and the Board of Governors approved that recommendation.

The petitioner alleged he had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard at the appellate stage.

He filed the writ petition on 29 October 2026, more than six years after the impugned order.

Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary, and the absence of a statutory limitation period does not remove the need for a petitioner to approach the Court with reasonable promptitude; delay and laches are not inflexible bars but are relevant to the exercise of discretion.

Natural justice is an important consideration, but the Court assessed the alleged denial of a personal hearing alongside the record and whether the petitioner had shown prejudice sufficient to justify reopening concluded proceedings after a substantial delay.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance that he had not personally participated in the appellate hearing, but noted that the record referred to a communication directing the parties, including the petitioner, to attend.

It also found that the Committee had considered the petitioner’s complaint, the Delhi Medical Council’s findings, and the material filed on appeal before recommending exoneration.

In those circumstances, and given the more-than-six-year delay, the Court found no demonstrated prejudice sufficient to warrant reopening the proceedings under Article 226.

It left the petitioner at liberty to pursue any other remedies available in law and clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the proceedings, which would remain for independent consideration by the competent forum, subject to permissible legal objections.