Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Uttarakhand Medical Council & Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1237 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Uttarakhand Medical Council & Another on 19 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

               Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures




                                  WPMS No.378 of 2026
                                  Max Healthcare Institute Limited                                 ....Petitioner

                                                               Vs.
                                  Uttarakhand Medical Council & another

                                                                                                   ......Respondents
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Rohit Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 04.02.2026, passed by the Ethics Committee, Uttarakhand Medical Council in Complaint No. 295/319 of the year 2025, Col. Amit Kumar vs. Max Healthcare Institute Limited & others, whereby the petitioner-hospital has been saddled with a liability to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to respondent no.2-complainant for negligence shown by the petitioner- hospital.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-hospital that the respondent-Uttarakhand Medical Council has no jurisdiction in respect of the negligence committed by the hospital. In order to buttress his argument, he refers to Section 10(f) of the Uttarakhand Medical Council Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002"), which is quoted hereinbelow:

"10. Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or

under the provisions of this Act, the powers, duties and functions of the council shall be:-

(f) to receive complaints from public (including patients and their relatives) against misconduct or negligence by a medical practitioner, to proceed for inquest, take a decision on the merits of the case and to initiate disciplinary action or award compensation and similarly to take action against frivolous complaints."

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 10 of the Act, 2002 empowers the Council to receive complaints from the public (including patients and their relatives) against misconduct or negligence by a medical practitioner, and to proceed for inquest, take a decision on the merits of the case, initiate disciplinary action, award compensation, or similarly take action against frivolous complaints. It is further argued by him that the medical practitioner also has been defined under Section 2(7) the Act, 2002, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"2(7) "Medical Practitioner" or "Practitioner" means a person who is engaged in the practice of modern scientific system of medicine and all its branches and has qualifications as prescribed in the first, second or third schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (central Act 102 of 1956)."

7. On the strength of the aforesaid provisions, it is submitted that the Council has exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation against the hospital in a complaint of negligence of the doctor and hospital.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that the judgment is quite proper and has been passed on the basis of the

observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & others vs. Master Rishab Sharma & others (Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2016) along with Pooja Sharma & others vs. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & others (Civil Appeal No. 9461 of 2019). The Apex Court, though dealing with the matter of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, has opined that the hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence committed by the doctor working in the hospital.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment and order impugned, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations passed in the aforesaid cases, this Court is not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. In such an era, when big hospitals are running in society and engaging various doctors for the treatment of the public, the hospital cannot be left scot-free from being prosecuted by a court of law for the negligence committed by the doctor. Accordingly, the interim relief application (IA No. 1/2026) is hereby rejected.

11. Respondent(s) may file the counter affidavit(s) within four weeks.

12. List on 25.03.2026.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.02.2026 AK