01Facts
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed a medical-negligence complaint filed by Respondents 2 and 3, holding the petitioner and Deepak Hospital jointly and severally liable to pay ₹45 lakh with interest
p. 3The Commission’s finding on negligence relied substantially on a Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) order dated 15 November 2025 directing deletion of the petitioner’s name from the medical register for six months
pp. 5–6The petitioner had obtained an interim order in a separate writ petition concerning the KMC order, but did not bring that order to the State Commission’s attention; he also did not appeal the KMC order under Section 30 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019
pp. 4–6He challenged the State Commission’s judgment under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, although an appeal lay to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to review the State Commission’s judgment when a statutory appeal was available and the petitioner had not disclosed the interim order obtained in the KMC proceedings
p. 6 · ¶ 10ii.2. Whether the KMC order’s having been stayed required the High Court to set aside the State Commission’s judgment
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–903Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction, but the High Court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction where an adequate statutory appellate remedy is available.
p. 6 · ¶ 10The State Commission’s judgment was appealable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act
p. 6 · ¶ 10The judgment also noted that an appeal against the KMC order could be pursued under Section 30 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019
p. 6 · ¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 Section 30
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had not informed the State Commission of the interim order obtained in the KMC proceedings and characterised that omission as concealment
p. 6 · ¶ 10It also considered that the petitioner had not complied with the State Commission’s compensation directions and that the impugned judgment was appealable before the National Commission
p. 6 · ¶ 10In those circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.
p. 6 · ¶ 10Although it observed that the State Commission’s negligence finding relied substantially on the KMC order, it left the merits and the petitioner’s substantive pleas to be addressed before the appropriate forum
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 9–1105Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in light of the available statutory appeal and the petitioner’s non-disclosure of the interim order
p. 6 · ¶ 10It expressly made no determination on the merits and left the petitioner free to raise his pleas before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
p. 6 · ¶ 11Original Court PDF
DR ANIL KUMAR RvsKARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
