Bombay High Court
Mohit S/O Agamsingh Chandel vs The Maha. Medical Council. Mumbai Thr. ... on 14 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17465-DB
1/4 35.wp.5418.22-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5418/2022
Mohit S/o. Agamsingh Chandel,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. Shram Safalya Building,
Kawarapeth Umred, Distt. Nagpur. PETITIONER
----VERSUS----
1. The Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai
Through its President, Having its Office at
189-A, Anand Complex First Floor,
Sane Guruji Marg, Chinchpokali (W), Mumbai,
2. Aureus Institute of Medical Sciences,
Through its Authorized Signatory,
Having its Office at 16 Medical College Road
Opposite Rajabaksha Mandir,
Tq. & Distt. Nagpur.
3. Dr. Ashish Ganjre,
Aged about 42 years, Occu.: Medical Practitioner,
R/o. C/o. Aureus Institute of Medical Sciences,
16 Medical College Road, Opposite Rajabaksha
Mandir, Tq. and Distt. Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
(Respondent Nos.2 and 3 added as per Court's order dated
08.09.2022)
Mr. T. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. P. Pinpalia, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. N. R. Bhishikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 14.12.2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J]
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2/4 35.wp.5418.22-J.odt
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by inaction of the
respondent No.1 to take appropriate action on the complaint dated
14.09.2021 within stipulated period of time.
3. The father of the petitioner had tested positive for Covid-19
virus and he was hospitalized at respondent No.2 Hospital. The petitioner
claims that the condition of his father was critical in view of the
substandard treatment provided by the respondent No.2 and 3. He claims
that the respondent No.3, who was the treating Doctor pressurized him to
shift the patient to the hospital at Chennai, for which purpose he was
required to deposit an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards charges of Air
Ambulance and ECMO charges. The petitioner further claims that his
father was not discharged though respondent No.2 the hospital had issued
a certificate certifying that he was fit to travel. As a consequence, his
father succumbed to Covid-19 virus in the respondent No.2 Hospital on
19.03.2021.
4. The petitioner claims that his father was not airlifted to
Chennai, due to the negligence on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
and that the death of his father was also due to the deficiencies in service
provided by them. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated
3/4 35.wp.5418.22-J.odt
14.09.2021 before the respondent No.1- Medical Council for removal of
name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from its Register.
5. It is pertinent to note that the certificate dated 08.02.2021
which has been placed on record by the petitioner indicates that the
condition of the father of the petitioner was critical. He was on ventilator.
The said certificate indicates that the relatives of the patient had requested
to transfer him at Higher Center with ventilatory support inotrops. The
hospital had not certified that the patient was in a fit condition to travel
but has categorically explained to the relatives that there was very high
risk including danger to life, during transport. Having explained to the
petitioner and the other relatives, the risk factor involved, the respondent
No.2 Hospital issued a certificate that the patient was being shifted to
Higher Center for further management and they did not have any
objection. The certificate was issued only to enable the petitioner and the
other relatives to airlift the patient. The respondent No.2 had not received
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- but the same was paid to airlines which was to
airlift the patient to Chennai.
6. Thus, prima facie there is no negligence on the part of
respondent No.2 Hospital. Furthermore, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 stated that it has no jurisdiction to take any action
against the respondent No.2 Hospital.
4/4 35.wp.5418.22-J.odt
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that by letter
dated 28.10.2021 the petitioner was called upon to give a declaration in
the request form as contemplated under Rule 62 of the Maharashtra
Medical Council Rules, 1967 along with necessary medical papers, test
report etc. It is stated that the petitioner has approached this Court
without complying with the instructions under letter dated 28.10.2021.
8. In the light of the said statement, learned Counsel for the
petitioner states that a fresh complaint will be filed before the respondent
No.1 within one week with due compliance of requirement for action
against the respondent No.3. In the event, such complaint is filed in
accordance with the Rule 62 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Rules,
1967, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same and take appropriate
decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the
complaint. The petition stands disposed of.
9. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
RGurnule.
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/12/2023 13:08:18
