Delhi High Court
Priyanka Charla vs Medical Council Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2021
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 21.12.2021
+ W.P.(C) 14624/2021 & CM APPL. 46085/2021 (exemption)
PRIYANKA CHARLA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. S. Tripathy with Mr. G. S.
Bagga, Advs. with petitioner in
person
versus
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Sumangla
Swanmi, Advs. for Respondent no.1
Mr. Praveen Khattar, Adv. for
Respondent no.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 46085/2021 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14624/2021
3. The petitioner, who claims to have taken IVF treatment at respondent
no.3 hospital on 28.05.2013, has inter alia approached this Court with
a grievance that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 have refused to take any
decision on her complaint made against the respondent nos. 3 to 6.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's
complaint has been rejected by respondent no.2 solely on the ground
that the petitioner has already filed a criminal complaint in this regard.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:22.12.2021
15:50:57
He, contends that it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2, which
has been enshrined with an important statutory regulatory duty, under
the Delhi Medical Council Act to examine the petitioner's complaint
on merits.
5. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner would for the present be satisfied if her complaint
against respondent nos. 3 to 6 is examined by respondent no. 2 on
merits, and a reasoned order passed thereon after following the
principles of natural justice
6. In the light of this limited prayer, once Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr.
Praveen Khattar are already present on behalf of respondent no. 1 and
2, no notice is required to be issued to the other respondents.
7. Having perused the communication dated 21.10.2019 issued by
respondent no.2, whereby it has simply deferred consideration of the
petitioner' complaint on account of the pendency of the criminal
proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent nos. 3 to
6 herein, I am of the considered opinion that despite the pendency of
the criminal proceedings, the respondent no. 2 was required to deal
with the complaint preferred by the petitioner on merits. The stand
adopted by the respondent no. 2 cannot be appreciated, especially
when the scope of the two proceedings are different. Reference may
be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Askari Hadi Ali
Augustine Imam and Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) and Ors. AIR
2009 SC 3232. Para 9 and 10 thereof reads as under -
...Indisputably, in a given case, a civil proceeding as also a
criminal proceeding may proceed simultaneously. Cognizance
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:22.12.2021
15:50:57
in a criminal proceeding can be taken by the criminal court
upon arriving at the satisfaction that there exists a prima facie
case.
The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case one or the other proceedings would be stayed would
depend upon several factors including the nature and the stage
of the case."
10. It is, however, now well settled that ordinarily a criminal
proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding.
Precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to
the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a
long time and in the interest of justice the former should be
disposed of as expeditiously as possible."
8. The communication dated 21.10.2019 issued by respondent no.2 is
therefore not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that
since the complaint filed by the petitioner was not comprehensive as
the petitioner had merely annexed a copy of her legal notice, it may
not be possible for the said respondent to deal with the petitioner's
grievances. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that
the present writ petition be treated as the petitioner's representation.
10.In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of by
directing respondent no.2 to treat the present writ petition as the
petitioner's representation and take a decision thereon by passing a
reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four months, after
following the principles of natural justice and adhering to the
prescribed procedure.
11.While taking a decision on the petitioner's complaint, the respondent
no.2 will also consider the petitioner's prayer that though she has been
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:22.12.2021
15:50:57
regularly making payments to the respondent no.3 for preservation of
her embryos, she has not been provided any information in this regard
by the said hospital.
12.Needless to state, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the petitioner's claim and in case the petitioner is still
aggrieved, it is open for her to seek legal recourse as permitted in law.
REKHA PALLI, J
DECEMBER 21, 2021
ms
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:22.12.2021
15:50:57
