[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ankuran Dutta vs Medical Council Of India & Ors on 18 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~109
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12591/2019 & CM APPL. 6554/2024
Date of Decision: 18.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANKURAN DUTTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abir Phukan, Ms. Rishika
Radhakrishnan, Mr. Shamik Sanyal,
Advocates.
versus
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Praveen Khattar, Advocate for R-
2.
Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for setting aside the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by
the respondent no.1 whereby, the petitioner's appeal against the order dated
16.06.2017 was disposed of.
2. The petitioner seems to have filed a complaint alleging medical
negligence against respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Delhi Medical Council
['DMC']. Acting on the said complaint, vide order dated 16.06.2017, the
DMC had directed that the name of respondent nos.3 and 4 be removed from
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:24:09 KUMAR KAURAV
the State Medical Register for a period of 15 days.
3. Against the order dated 16.06.2017, the petitioner had filed an appeal
before respondent no.1 seeking enhancement of the punishment. Respondent
nos. 3 and 4 had also filed appeals against the said order before respondent
no. 1. All three appeals were disposed of vide impugned order.
4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that the
petitioner's appeal has not been dealt with on merits. According to the
petitioner, the punishment awarded to respondents no. 3 and 4 is not
proportionate to the gravity of their aggravated misconduct. It is also pointed
out that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 does not specifically
deal with the aspect of enhancement of punishment.
5. Respondent no. 1-National Medical Commission/Medical Council of
India (NMC) is represented by Mr. T. Singhdev, respondent no. 2-DMC is
represented by Mr. Praveen Khattar, and respondent no. 3 is represented by
Mr. T.K. Tiwari. They try to justify the impugned order. Mr. Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, submits that at the request of the
petitioner himself, the expert opinion was obtained.
6. It be noted that this Court cannot be expected to assume the
jurisdiction of the appellate authority and to deal with the submissions on
merit. Once an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent no.
1, the same ought to have been dealt with on its merits. A perusal of the
entire order would, nowhere, reflect any deliberation on the petitioner's
appeal. The NMC has dealt with the appeal filed by the doctors and has
affirmed the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the DMC. However, the
aspect of enhancement of punishment, which was the specific grievance
raised in the petitioner's appeal, has not been deliberated on at all.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:24:09 KUMAR KAURAV
7. In view thereof, the Court finds that the order dated 27.09.2019
suffers from material illegality and does not withstand the scrutiny of law.
Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside to the extent of non-
consideration of the petitioner's appeal.
8. Ordered accordingly.
9. Therefore, the appeal of the petitioner is directed to be restored to its
number. Thereafter, let the same be dealt with by the concerned authority in
accordance with law after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
11. All rights and contentions are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2026/P/AMG
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:24:09 KUMAR KAURAV
