[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Dron Mishra vs National Medical Commission & Ors on 19 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10535/2021
Date of Decision: 19.02.2026
DRON MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr.
Tanishq Srivastava and Mr. Vedant
Sood, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Nishaank Mattoo, Mr. Naman Kr.
Thakur, Ms. Charu Kumar and Mr.
Utkarsh, Advocates for R-2.
Dr. Sunil Khattri, Ms. Priyana Gupta
and Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Advs. for
R-3.
Mr. Kunal Kher, Advocate for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. This matter was earlier called out on 12.02.2026, and none had
appeared for respondent no.4, therefore the hearing was deferred. The order
dated 12.02.2026 is extracted hereunder:-
1. It appears that against some of the doctors, findings have been
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:33:28
KUMAR KAURAV
recorded by the National Commission of Disputes Redressal Committee
(„NCDRC‟), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
2. In view thereof, coupled with the factum that the petition was not
heard by the erstwhile Medical Council of India, the Court is of the
opinion that the matter should be remitted back to the appropriate
committee of the National Medical Commission for its reconsideration.
3. Since, respondent no. 4 is not appearing, in the interest of justice,
hearing stands adjourned till 19.02.2026.
2. Despite sufficient opportunity given, none appears for R-4. However
all the other respondents are represented for by their respective counsel.
3. The controversy in the instant case emanates from passing of the
impugned order dated 28.05.2021 by the Board of Governor on Medical
Counsel of India by the erstwhile Board of Medical Council of India. The
sole grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order dated 28.05.2021 has
been passed without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner herein is that, his father is a victim of
medical negligence, and against the same, the petitioner seems to have filed
the complaint against the respondent doctors before the Uttar Pradesh State
Medical Council.
5. The petitioner submits that his father, on experiencing a complaint of
blood urine, vomiting etc, had visited the OPD of Dr. Sandeep Agarwal on
08.12.2013. Thereupon, certain medication was prescribed by the concerned
doctor. It is submitted that he again visited the said doctor on 09.12.2013
and also between 10.12.2013 to 17.12.2013, Dr. Muffazal Ahmed had
pointed out certain health complications to the petitioner, and accordingly,
dialysis was advised.
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:33:28
KUMAR KAURAV
6. In the meantime, the respondent No.3 and 4 prescribed iron injection,
more particularly, Encicarb Injections (Ferric Carboxy Maltose) injections to
the patient, which were administered to the patient between 11.12.2013 to
22.02.2013. The patient was ultimately discharged on 17.12.2013.
7. It is further submitted that the health condition of the petitioner
worsened and therefore, he had to take further medical treatment from
various medical institutions. Against the alleged negligence in the treatment
done, the father of the petitioner filed a consumer complaint being No.
CC/998/2015 before the Consumer Commission on 05.09.2015, and a
separate complaint before the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Council on
08.01.2016 against the Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5.
8. The complaint was dismissed by the Uttar Pradesh Medical Council
on 12.04.2019. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the erstwhile Medical Council of India. The said appeal was
considered by the ethics Committee of MCI. The impugned order exonerates
the doctors.
9. The petitioner therefore is aggrieved by the same, and hence
approached this Court. The solitary point raised by the petitioner is with
respect to not being afforded an opportunity of hearing before the concerned
forum prior to the closing of the appeal.
10. On merits, the petitioner places reliance on the order dated 07.11.2019
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(NCDRC), wherein, according to him, the NCDRC directed the Opposite
Parties No. 2, 3 and 4 therein, i.e., the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:33:28
KUMAR KAURAV
respectively, to pay a compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the complainant
therein, while holding them guilty of negligence. The petitioner submits that
the said order was appealed before the Supreme Court, and the same was
dismissed.
11. The said submission is opposed by Mr. T.S. Singhdeo, who is
representing the Respondent 2 and 5. He has drawn the attention of the
Court to the minutes of Ethics Committee to point out that the Appellate
Authority vide letter dated 26.11.2019, which required the
petitioner/complainant to appear before the Ethics Committee on
10.12.2019, and despite the notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the
concerned authority. He submits that once the petitioner chooses not to
appear in the matter, the matter was proceeded without the
complainant/petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that letter
dated 26.11.2019 was never received by the Petitioner, and the service of the
same was never done on him.
12. With respect to the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the NCDRC, he
submits that once the competent authority, i.e., the Medical Council of India
has taken a view on the same, the same does not require any further
reconsideration, and that there is no negligence attributable to the respondent
No. 2 and 5.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
14. From the record, there is no document to indicate that the letter dated
26.11.2019 was served on the petitioner, and there seems to be no proof of
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:33:28
KUMAR KAURAV
service of the said letter on the petitioner herein. Irrespective of the same, it
remains uncontroverted by all parties, that the petitioner was neither present
nor heard at during the appellate proceedings.
15. Various arguments on facts were made by the parties on the merits of
the matter. However, the Court is of the considered opinion that the same
can be appreciated by the Committee of the body that is currently
constituted, in place of the Medical Council of India, i.e., the National
Medial Commission, to examine the matter and hear the appeal while
providing a hearing opportunity to the petitioner herein.
16. Therefore, taking into consideration the controversy herein, especially
that the principles of natural justice was not adhered to and that the appeal
was closed without the complainant therein being heard, the Court deems it
appropriate to direct the concerned body of the National Medical
Commission to conduct a re-hearing of the parties on the appellate
proceedings and to pass appropriate orders.
17. It is pertinent to note that the Court has not made any observations on
the merits of the matter and all rights and contentions of the parties are left
open.
18. The present petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
JYH/mj
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:33:28
KUMAR KAURAV
