Madras High Court
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan vs The Registrar on 19 January, 2022
WP No. 11983 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19-01-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Writ Petition No. 11983 of 2021
and
WMP.No.12753 of 2021
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
4-A, Radhakrishna Apartments
No.33, Sarojini Street
Ram Nagar
Coimbatore - 641 009 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Medical Council
New No.914, Old No.569
Poonamallee High Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106
2. The Disciplinary Committee
Tamil Nadu Medical Council
New No.914, Old No.569
Poonamallee High Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106
3. S. Shri Subitha
Wife of Dr. Saravanan
4/315, CLRI Nagar Road
Ruby Complex Road
Neelangarai
Chennai - 600 115
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis .. Respondents
1/26
WP No. 11983 of 2021
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the
proceedings under Ref.No.TNMC/DC No.136/2018 dated 04.05.2021 before
the first and second respondents and consequently direct the respondent No.1
to restore the name of the petitioner in the Medical Register of Tamil Nadu
Medical Council.
For Petitioner : Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Advocate
for Mr. S. Manuraj
For Respondents : Mr. G. Sankaran for RR1 and 2
Mr. J. Ashok for R3
ORDER
The petitioner calls in question the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by the
first respondent, in and by which, he was imposed with the punishment of
removal of his name from the medical register of Tamil Nadu Medical Council
for two years, with further direction that during such period of deletion of his
name from the medical register, he is not entitled to practice Medicine.
2. The case projected in the writ petition is as follows:
2.1 The petitioner completed his M.B.B.S. degree from Madras
Medical College and also acquired A.S.T.S. Certified Clinical Fellowship in
Transplant Surgery from United States of America. It is also stated that he is a
member of F.R.C.S. Ireland, Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland and
F.R.C.S. England, Royal College of Surgeons of England. It is further stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
that he is a registered Medical Practitioner with the Tamil Nadu Medical
Council vide Registration No. 38590 in 1984. The petitioner claims to have
performed several extensive surgeries including Kidney, Pancreas and small
bowel transplantation; and he worked as a Consultant Surgeon in Sri
Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore and as Transplant Surgeon in Coimbatore
Kidney Centre.
2.2 On 19.10.2018, the third respondent preferred a complaint to the
Medical Council of India, alleging that the petitioner herein had issued a
fraudulent medical certificate dated 08.10.2015 certifying the medical
condition of her father deceased N. Pitchaimani as on 08.10.2015. According
to the third respondent, on the basis of such certificate, her brother
Mr. Sakthi Kumar had prepared a requisition letter addressed to the
Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai and registered a settlement deed by which valuable
properties of her father were transferred in his favour. According to the
petitioner, the medical certificate dated 08.10.2015 issued by him had
allegedly facilitated the execution of the settlement deed in favour of the
brother of the third respondent by which a prime properties worth about 50
crores have been alienated fraudulently and therefore, she has given the
complaint dated 19.10.2018 against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
2.3 On receipt of the complaint dated 19.10.2018, sent through
e-mail, the Medical Council of India forwarded it to the first respondent on
14.11.2018 with a request to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of
The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)
Regulations, 2002.
2.4 Pursuant to the same, a disciplinary committee was constituted to
conduct an enquiry against the petitioner and others. On the same set of facts,
the third respondent also gave a complaint to the Central Crime Branch,
Chennai, based on which, a case in Crime No. 374 of 2016 was registered.
After investigation, a final report was filed on 25.06.2018 before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. To quash the same, the petitioner has filed
Criminal Original Petition No. 29269 of 2019 before this Court and the same
is pending.
2.5 In the meantime, on the basis of the complaint dated 19.10.2018,
the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.11.2018 calling upon
the petitioner and others to submit their explanation. The petitioner submitted
a reply on 11.01.2019 narrating the circumstances which led to the issuance of
Medical Certificate. It is his explanation that the medical certificate has been
issued with a bonafide intention by adhering to the norms. In his reply, the
petitioner also referred to the delay in filing the complaint by the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
respondent, three years after he issued a certificate and this delay, according to
him, vitiates the entire complaint. Pursuant to his explanation, the first
respondent did not take any action. However, seven months after he submitted
his explanation on 11.01.2019, he received another letter dated 31.07.2019
directing the petitioner to produce medical records relating to the deceased
N. Pitchaimani. However, even before the petitioner could submit the medical
records, the first respondent issued another letter dated 19.08.2019 calling
upon the petitioner to attend an enquiry on 26.08.2019 at 11.30 am. The
petitioner also attended the enquiry and submitted a letter issued by Fortis
Malar Hospital where the deceased Pitchaimani was treated, stating that the
deceased was conscious and oriented on 08.10.2015 i.e. the date on which the
certificate was issued by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after he
attended the enquiry on 26.08.2019, he did not hear from the respondents.
While so, on 04.05.2021, the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned
order removing his name from the Tamil Nadu Medical Register for two years.
Therefore, challenging the order dated 05.04.2021, the present writ petition is
filed.
3.1 Mr. N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there was undue delay in preferring the complaint by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
complainant. The disputed medical certificate was issued on 08.10.2015 but
the complaint was given three years thereafter on 19.10.2018. As per
Regulation 8.4 of the 2003 Regulations, complaint relating to medical
negligence or omission or commission in treatment has to be preferred within
six months. Regulation 8.1 of the 2003 Regulations reads as follows:-
"8.1. It must be clearly understood that the instances of
offences and of professional misconduct which are given above
do not constitute and are not intended to constitute a complete
list of the infamous acts which calls for disciplinary action, and
that by issuing this notice the Medical Council of India and or
State Medical Councils are in no way precluded from
considering and dealing with any other form of professional
misconduct on the part of a registered practitioner.
Circumstances may and do arise from time to time in relation to
which there may occur questions of professional misconduct
which do not come within any of these categories. Every care
should be taken that the code is not violated in letter or spirit.
In such instances as in all others, the Medical Council of India
and/or State Medical Councils have to consider and decide
upon the facts brought before the Medical Council of India
and/or State Medical Councils.
3.2 By placing reliance on Regulation 8.1 referred to above, it is
submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Tamil Nadu Medical Council
is bound to decide solely upon facts and not act upon mere statements given by
the complainant. According to the learned Senior counsel, the respondents 1
and 2 have merely placed reliance on uncorroborated or unsubstantiated
allegations of the complainant which would tend to have an adverse effect on
the parallel criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
3.3 It is further contended by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner that the disputed medical certificate issued by the petitioner is
strictly as per the medical norms. He invited the attention of this Court to the
contents of the disputed medical certificate issued by the petitioner, which
reads as follows:-
"Mr. N. Pitchaimani aged 66 years is residing at 3/3 B,
Sivasamy Avenue, MGR Road, Palavakkam, Chennai 600
041; He is suffering from decompensate liver disease due to
lymphoma of liver. He is also suffering from chronic renal
failure. Diabetes and Vascular gangrene of Rt.Leg. He is
emaciated and very weak. He is conscious and oriented but
confined to his bed. He is not in a fit state to travel."
3.4 It is the vehement contention of the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner that the medical certificate issued by the petitioner is solely intended
to determine the physical condition of the patient to undertake a travel. Such
certificate was issued after ascertaining the physical fitness of the patient.
Even in such certificate, the consciousness of the patient was recorded by the
petitioner which would stand testimony to the bonafides of the petitioner in
issuing the certificate. On the other hand, the first respondent, in the impugned
order, has recorded a finding as though the certificate was issued with the sole
purpose of registering the properties of the patient clandestinely when the
patient was on his deathbed. The respondents failed to take note of the fact that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
such certificate was issued to the attendant of the patient, who is none other
than his son-in-law. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel
that the certificate issued by the petitioner is strictly in accordance with
medical norms. The petitioner had no idea as to whether the son-in-law was
going to utilise such certificate for transferring the properties standing in the
name of the patient.
3.5 The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the respondents 1 and 2, in Paragraph 20 of the impugned order, has made
reference to the acts of forgery on the part of the petitioner in issuing the
medical certificate. It is his vehement contention that issuing a medical
certificate by determining the medical condition or physical state of the patient
by a qualified medical practitioner will not fall within the realm of Section 468
of the Indian Penal Code. However, the first and second respondents, travelled
beyond the scope of complaint to record a finding that a false certificate has
been issued by the petitioner and it amounts to forgery. Such a finding
recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 would lead to an inference that the order
passed by the respondents 1 and 2 is tainted with malice. Further, the
respondents 1 and 2 have recorded certain findings without reference to the
fact that it would have an adverse impact in the pending criminal proceedings
against the petitioner. In any event, the medical certificate issued by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
petitioner is without any motive. The respondents 1 and 2 have exceeded the
scope of the enquiry to examine the professional misconduct on the part of the
petitioner and inflicted the punishment of debarring him from practising
medicine based on unsubstantiated allegations. Such an order of punishment is
not legally sustainable and it is liable only to be set aside.
3.6 The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance
on the additional grounds raised, would submit that the respondents 1 and 2
proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of statements made by
Dr. P. Basumani in the inquiry held on 22.04.2021. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, Dr. Basumani was inquired about an incident which had taken
place six years ago. There are also contradictions in the statement of
Dr. Basumani and therefore, the petitioner disputed his statements. However,
the respondents 1 and 2, based on the statement of Dr. P. Basumani, passed the
impugned order. Furthermore, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to
cross-examine the medical professionals whose evidence were recorded and
relied as against the petitioner. Therefore, such statements cannot be relied on
to inflict the punishment as against the petitioner and it is in violation of
principles of natural justice. The learned Senior counsel therefore prayed for
allowing this writ petition to enable the petitioner to continue his medical
profession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
4.1 Per contra, Mr. G. Sankaran, the learned counsel appearing for the
first and second respondents would contend that on receipt of a complaint
dated 19.10.2018 from the third respondent, the Board of Governors, in
supersession of Medical Council of India, forwarded a copy of the complaint
to the first respondent to take necessary action as per Indian Medical Council
Regulations (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), 2002. The
respondents 1 and 2 in turn forwarded the complaint to the petitioner on
28.11.2018 and his response was sought. The petitioner submitted his
explanation on 11.01.2019 repudiating the averments made in the complaint.
Therefore, the case was referred to the disciplinary committee of the Council
and summon was issued to the petitioner for his appearance on 26.08.2019.
The petitioner also appeared on 26.08.2019, on which date, an enquiry was
conducted and he was heard by the committee. The Committee also summoned
the former Medical Superintendent as also present Medical Superintendent of
Fortis Malar Hospital where the patient took treatment till his death.
Accordingly, Dr. Praveen Nilagar, former Medical Superintendent and
Dr. Anand Mohan Pai, present Medical Superintendent appeared on
12.11.2019 and deposed that they were not employed in Fortis Malar Hospital
during the period of incident. Their statement was recorded by the committee
on 12.11.2019. Subsequently, the committee summoned Dr. P. Basumani, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
treated the patient, for his appearance on 22.04.2021. After recording the
statement of Dr. Basumani and taking note of the norms to be adhered to by a
medical practitioner, the Committee felt that the certificate issued by the
petitioner fell short of the integrity and conduct expected of a medical
practitioner. The committee also concluded that the petitioner violated the trust
and faith reposed towards a medical professional thereby he committed
professional lapses which was not expected of him. Therefore, for such lapses,
to ensure that the punishment to be imposed must act as a deterrent to other
practitioners, the Committee recommended for imposition of punishment of
removal of the name of the petitioner from the Medical Register. Such
decision of the committee was placed before the Tamil Nadu Medical Council
in the meeting held on 25.04.2021 and the Council accepted the
recommendation of the committee and imposed the punishment of removing
the name of the petitioner from the medical register for a period of two years.
4.2 The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted
that the enquiry conducted by the committee clearly established that the
petitioner has issued the certificate to the father of the third respondent without
the knowledge of the Doctors, who were treating him in Fortis Malar Hospital.
The enquiry also disclosed that the petitioner is based in Coimbatore and did
not treat the patient at any time, who was taking treatment at Fortis Malar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
Hospital, Adyar, Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to issue
such a certificate, as he may not be aware of the actual physical condition of
the patient. The medical certificate issued by the petitioner is contrary to the
health condition of the patient and contravenes Regulation 7.7 of Tamil Nadu
Medical Council Code of Medical Ethics (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and
Ethics) Regulations, 2003. The petitioner has not mentioned in his certificate
the identification marks of the patient or obtained the signature of the patient,
which is in gross violation of Regulation 1.3.3. Further, as per Regulation 1.9,
the petitioner ought to have observed the laws of the Country in regulating the
Practice of medicine. The act of the petitioner, in not following the
fundamental and basic principles while issuing the certificate infringes
Regulation 1.9. Therefore, it is not as though the petitioner was imposed
punishment without any basis or any material evidence. The petitioner, who
committed lapses, has been imposed the punishment proportionate to the
extent of lapses.
4.3 The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 also submits that
the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the Committee has not
exceeded the limit or travelled beyond the scope of enquiry, as has been
alleged by the petitioner. An enquiry of this nature cannot be compared on par
with a criminal investigation to go deep into the root of criminal conspiracy or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
other offences. The Disciplinary Committee is a quasi judicial body and it can
interpret law and has been given some powers and procedures to be followed
in arriving at a decision. In this context, the learned counsel placed reliance on
the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Alister Anthony Pareira vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 648
wherein it was held that while exercising discretion in sentencing the
proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation have to be taken into account.
However, what sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case and the Court must keep in mind the gravity of
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant
circumstances. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, the
Council, in adherence to such principles laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court, has awarded a just and proper punishment after taking into
account all the attendant circumstances appearing against the petitioner.
5.1 Mr.J.Ashok, learned counsel for the third respondent vehemently
opposed the writ petition stating that a fair enquiry has been conducted by the
respondents 1 and 2 and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is
proportionate to the proved charges. According to the learned counsel, the
deceased Pitchumani engaged in Real Estate Business and owned various
properties in and around Chennai and Dindigul District. Due to ill health, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
was admitted in Fortis Malar Hospital on 27.09.2015 as an in-patient until
11.10.2015, when he breathed his last. After the death of the deceased
Pitchumani, his daughter, the third respondent, on suspicion, applied for the
encumbrance certificate and noticed that a settlement deed dated 09.10.2015
was registered by the deceased Pitchamani in favour of her brother
Sakthikumar. Immediately, the third respondent preferred an application dated
03.03.2016 to furnish certain documents, but they were refused by the then
Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai, by letter dated 20.06.2016. The third respondent
therefore submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai which
was forwarded to Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennai. However, without
conducting any enquiry, the complaint was closed. Therefore, the third
respondent filed Crl.OP No. 16584 of 2016 before this Court to register a first
information report based on her complaint dated 30.06.2016. By order dated
08.08.2016, this Court, taking note of the magnitude of the offence alleged to
have been committed in the matter of registration of settlement deed dated
09.10.2015, directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chennai to nominate
a competent officer in the rank of Inspector of Police to re-enquire the
complaint and to take action in accordance with law. Pursuant to such
direction, a case in Crime No. 374 of 2016 was registered by the Inspector of
Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai in which Mr. Dhamu, Sub-Registrar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
was arrayed as A-1. The petitioner's brother and the petitioner were also
arrayed as accused in the Criminal Case. Upon registration of the case in
Crime No. 374 of 2016, the petitioner's brother filed Crl.OP No. 14754 of
2018 and it was dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, Special
Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 2314 and 2315 of 2019 were filed and ultimately,
they were dismissed as withdrawn.
5.2 The learned counsel for the third respondent proceeded to contend
that on 15.02.2017, the Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai, who succeeded
Mr.Dhamu, the then Sub-Registrar, furnished the documents sought for by the
third respondent and on going through the same, the petitioner was shocked to
find the Certificate dated 08.10.2015 issued by the petitioner. The certificate
issued by the third respondent did not bear the name and address of the
practitioner, date of examination, degree of incapacity of the patient etc. In
other words, the certificate issued by the petitioner is bereft of mandatory
particulars required to be indicated by a Medical Practitioner while certifying
the fitness of a patient. Thus, the certificate dated 08.10.2015 was deliberately
issued by the petitioner to facilitate his son-in-law to alienate the properties of
the father of the third respondent with an element of criminal intention. The
fallacy of the certificate dated 08.10.2015 issued by the petitioner could be
inferred from the fact that the father of the third respondent was hospitalised in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
Fortis Malar Hospital, Chennai from 27.09.2015 till his death on 11.10.2015.
However, the certificate issued by the petitioner states that the petitioner was
attending on the patient at his residence. Thus, the certificate dated 08.10.2015
issued by the petitioner is contrary to the medical records maintained by Fortis
Malar Hospital, where the father of the third respondent was admitted.
Therefore, for the contravention of Regulations 1.3.3 of the Tamil Nadu
Medical Council (Professional Misconduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations,
2003, the second respondent rightly imposed the punishment and it does not
call for any interference by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed on record.
7. It could be seen that a complaint dated 19.10.2018 was received
by the Medical Council of India, New Delhi from the third respondent
complaining that the petitioner, to facilitate his son-in-law to grab the property
of her father, deceased Pitchamani, who was admitted in Fortis Malar Hospital,
Chennai, has issued a false and fabricated medical certificate dated 08.10.2015
as if he had physically examined the patient and certified that he was
conscious and oriented. It is the further complaint of the third respondent that
by utilising the certificate dated 08.10.2015 issued by the petitioner, his
son-in- law, (who is also the brother of the third respondent) Sakthi Kumar had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
got a settlement deed registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai, in
which the place of registration of the settlement deed is mentioned as
"residence of the deceased". The deed relates to various properties worth about
Rs.50 crores and as if the same had been executed by way of a settlement in
favour of the son-in-law of the petitioner by the deceased. On the contrary, on
the date of alleged registration of the settlement deed dated 09.10.2015, the
deceased was taking treatment in Fortis Malar Hospital in the Intensive Care
Unit. It is on the basis of such complaint of the third respondent, the petitioner
was subjected to an enquiry and it ultimately culminated in passing of the
order dated 04.05.2021, removing his name from the Medical Register
maintained by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council for a period of two years.
8. The main plank of contention advanced by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the certificate was issued by the
petitioner bonafide and not with any malafide intention. The certificate has
been issued as a travel advisory to the patient and nothing more. Therefore, the
issuance of medical certificate by the petitioner will not fall within the realm
of professional misconduct warranting imposition of punishment. Above all, it
is stated that there is delay in preferring the complaint. The complaint was
given three years after issuance of the certificate by the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
therefore, the complaint ought not to have been entertained by the Council and
the punishment imposed on the petitioner is untenable.
9. Since the preliminary ground of attack relates to the complaint
being made by the third respondent after a period of three years from the date
of the execution of the settlement deed, it is appropriate that the said
contention be dealt with at the outset. The above narrated line of events would
go to show that it is not as if the third respondent had been sleeping over her
rights. Right from the time of the death of her father, the third respondent had
made several efforts legally and the fact that the registration was done by the
Sub-Registrar only on the strength of the certificate issued by the petitioner
dated 08.10.2015, came to light only as late as on 15.02.2017. Allowance may
also be given to the exploration of legal remedies in such a situation and as
such, the complaint being made in 2018 against the petitioner to the Medical
Council cannot be found fault with. In any case, where the facts are such as to
evoke a sense of shock at the manner in which the petitioner and his son-in-
law have acted, and which smacks of a calculated attempt to defraud the third
respondent’s father, this Court does not find it appropriate to allow the
technical plea of delay to thwart an enquiry/disciplinary proceeding against the
petitioner. Therefore, this ground of attack fails as the same cannot be
countenanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
10. The primary duty of Tamil Nadu Medical Council is to govern,
regulate and ensure the professional conduct and ethics to be adopted by the
registered medical practitioners. The medical practitioner has a primordial
duty to repose trust and faith in the patients and their relatives about their
recovery and well being. Any disregard or violation of the norms will have to
be dealt with by the Council, of course, after following the established
procedures as contemplated under law. If any complaint is made, complaining
that a medical practitioner had contravened the norms, Rules and Regulations
or there is abuse of position as a medical professional, such complaints will be
dealt with in accordance with the procedures as laid down under the
Regulations with the object of ensuring proportionality, deterrence and
rehabilitation by imposing proportionate punishment.
11. In the present case, on the basis of the complaint given by the
third respondent, a disciplinary committee was constituted. The Committee
examined the petitioner as well as others connected with the alleged lapses in
the matter of issuance of medical certificate dated 08.10.2015 by the
petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the complaint was given only
against the petitioner herein for having issued a certificate dated 08.10.2015
without even treating the patient. Further, in the certificate dated 08.10.2015, it
was mentioned by the petitioner as if the patient was conscious and oriented.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
However, the medical records maintained by Fortis Malar Hospital as well as
the statement of Dr. Basumani, Primary Consultant of Fortis Malar Hospital is
to the contrary. According to Dr. Basumani, the patient, on 08.10.2015, was
not conscious and oriented. Therefore, the contents of the certificate dated
08.10.2015, with respect to the physical condition of the patient, itself are not
correct.
12. Further, the certificate dated 08.10.2015 indicates that the
petitioner treated the patient at his residence on 08.10.2015. This is yet another
impropriety as the medical records make it clear that from the date of
admission of patient on 27.09.2015 till his death on 11.10.2015, he continued
to remain in the hospital in I.C.U and he was not discharged on 08.10.2015 or
on any other date. Therefore, when the patient was taking treatment in ICU on
08.10.2015, the certificate dated 08.10.2015 issued by the petitioner that he
treated the patient at his residence cannot be accepted and it amounts to a
blatant falsity. Further, in the certificate dated 08.10.2015, there is no
reference about the identity mark of the patient, the signature of the patient,
the signature, seal and address of the medical practitioner who issued it.
Therefore, the respondents concluded that such certificate dated 08.10.2015 is
contrary to Regulations 1.3.3 of Tamil Nadu Medical Council Code of Medical
Ethics (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
13. This Court also takes note of the fact that the case in Crime No.
374 of 2016 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,
Chennai against the petitioner and others in connection with the certificate
dated 08.10.2015 issued by him to the father of the complainant. This was also
taken note of by the respondents 1 and 2 while imposing the punishment on
the petitioner. In this context, it is important to note that certain glaring aspects
like the fact that the settlement deed was executed in favour of the petitioner’s
own son-in-law, the fact that the petitioner had issued the certificate without
the knowledge of the other doctors who were treating the deceased, and that
the certificate is issued as if the deceased was at his residence when in fact he
was in the ICU of the hospital, all point a clear case of abuse and misuse of
authority by the petitioner as a medical professional and issuance of such
certificate is based on clear falsehood. The petitioner’s conduct falls short of
the minimum degree of professional ethics as expected from a medical
professional.
14. At this juncture, this Court would like to point out that with the
very same set of facts, in the case of Dr P. Basumani v. Tamil Nadu Medical
Council, reported in (2021) 8 MLJ 113 this Court has come to the rescue of
the doctor who was issued with the punishment of removal of his name from
the medical register for six months when no professional misconduct was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
alleged against him and when he was only summoned before the Disciplinary
Committee to give material evidence in the inquiry which was being held
against the petitioner herein. Also, the punishment against the said Dr. P.
Basumani was imposed without following the principles of natural justice, and
he had in the very same circumstances acted in a different manner in tune with
the professional conduct expected of him as a medical professional. In
Basumani’s case, this Court held as follows-
“13. In this context, it is to be pointed out that in the larger
interest of the society, the highest degree of care, caution,
propriety and rectitude be expected from and followed by the
medical practitioners, who discharge a noble profession. On the
other hand, in the same breadth, it is important to acknowledge
the services of medical practitioners. Regard must be had to the
fact that they work under tremendous pressure - physically,
mentally, morally and also professionally. They cannot be
expected to perform their best, if the swords of Damocles are kept
hanging on their head constantly. Enough protection needs to be
given to the medical practitioners in order that they may not be
penalised, targeted or punished, unjustly. This principle finds
support in the decision of the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v.
State of Punjab and another [2005 (6) SCC 1] wherein it was
observed as follows:-
"51. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can
never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or
negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing
is to emphasise the need for care and caution in the interest
of society; for, the service which the medical profession
renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and
hence, there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous
or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefers recourse
to criminal process as a tool for pressurising the medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust
WP No. 11983 of 2021
compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be
guarded against.”In A.S.V. Narayanan Rao v. Ratnamala
and another [2013 (10) SCC 741] the Supreme Court,
reiterated with approval, the judgment in Jacob Mathew
referred to above and held that though the doctors are not
immune from legal clutches/proceedings in the event of
their negligence in discharge of their professional duties,
however, it is necessary to protect them from frivolous and
unjust prosecution. The Supreme Court in Vinod Dua v.
Union of India [2021 SCC Online SC 414 decided on
03.06.2021] once again reiterated on the above lines.
Applying the said legal proposition to the facts of the
present case, this court is of the opinion that the order of
punishment inflicted on the petitioner, cannot be allowed to
be sustained.”
15. In the very same breath, this Court is firm that where the
circumstances so warrant, erring medical professionals such as the petitioner,
must be dealt with in a manner known to law and no misplaced lenience can be
shown to such professionals. This would point out that every individual case
has to be decided on its own merits and the court has to discern the facts
carefully, which would alter the decision of the court accordingly. Where the
facts are not only glaring but also blatantly shocking, the court cannot turn on
Nelson’s eye to the same and the consequences that such an act of criminal
nature has entailed. It may even be said that the entire facts can be likened to
an interesting plot of a criminal thriller and it will be rather too naïve of this
Court to believe the version that the certificate was issued by the petitioner
only as a travel advisory to his own son-in-law without any rhyme or reason.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
The line of events and the date on which the settlement deed had been
executed can only be said to be too much of a coincidence to be believed to be
without any criminal intent. Rather if all the facts are placed together, they
simply fall in place like the pieces of the neat jigsaw puzzle. Justice is not
blind; her blindfolds only represent her impartiality. It is the duty of this Court
to make sure that the scales are always balanced and while every individual is
entitled to equality before the law, the concept of equality can be applied only
among equals. The very same concept of equality also demands that unequals
be treated differently. In the present circumstances this Court finds that the act
committed by the petitioner is fundamentally different and hence the
punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be found fault with.
16. In any event, the evidence made available before the respondent
established that the petitioner has breached the regulations contained under the
Tamil Nadu Medical Council Code of Medical Ethics (Professional Conduct,
Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2003. For having committed illegality in
relation to issuance of the certificate dated 08.10.2015, the petitioner was
imposed with punishment of removal of his name from the medical records for
two years. Such punishment imposed on the petitioner, in the view of this
Court, does not call for any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
17. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed confirming
the punishment of removal of name of the petitioner from the medical records
for two years. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
19.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rsh
To
1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Medical Council
New No.914, Old No.569
Poonamallee High Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106
2. The Disciplinary Committee
Tamil Nadu Medical Council
New No.914, Old No.569
Poonamallee High Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 11983 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J
rsh
WP No. 11983 of 2021
19.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
