Allowed

Mrs Shamshad Baig v. Dr Deepanju Das

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/10870/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Medical Council's rejection of an application to recall doctors for further cross-examination regarding alleged medical negligence. The Court quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of Karnataka Medical Council quashed; application for further cross-examination allowed.

Mrs Shamshad Baig Vs Dr Deepanju Das — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21956 WP No. 10870 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. SHAMSHAD BAIG, W/O MR. MAQSOOD BAIG, NO.1387, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TOTI MUNNIYAPPA COMPOUND, NEAR BETHEL PUBLIC SCHOOL, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶9

MR. MAQSOOD BAIG, S/O ANSAR BAIG, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.1387, TOTI MUNNIYAPPA COMPOUND, NEAR BETHEL PUBLIC SCHOOL, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAN N.C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

DR. DEEPANJU DAS, AGED MAJOR, C/O ZION HOSPITALS, NO.83/1, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶15

DR. SURJITH SINGH, AGED MAJOR, C/O ZION HOSPITALS, NO.83/1, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶16

M/S. ZION HOSPITALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21956 WP No. 10870 of 2017

¶18

NO.83/1, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 084. (BY SMT. RADHA PYARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.1.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 17.9.2016, ANNEXURE-E FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners filed a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, alleging that their son, who was receiving treatment from the respondents, died due to their negligence. After the cross-examination of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was concluded on 2nd July 2016, the petitioners, on 17th September 2016, filed an application to recall respondent Nos.1 and 2 for further cross-examination. They stated that new facts and circumstances pertaining to the qualifications, skills, and competence of the respondents and their role in the treatment of their son had come to light. They also claimed to have discovered new information related to the members of the treatment team who managed the epileptic attacks and the manner in which the treatment was administered, which was previously unknown to them. However, the Karnataka Medical Council, through the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21956 WP No. 10870 of 2017

¶25

impugned order, rejected their application. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶27

The petitioners have provided several reasons for recalling respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the Karnataka Medical Council, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' application for further cross-examination of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners argue that this decision is arbitrary and discriminatory. They also contend that no prejudice would be caused to respondent Nos.1 and 2 if they are subjected to further cross-examination by the petitioners.

¶28

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned order, dated 07.01.2017, passed by the Karnataka Medical Council in KMC/Enq.No.69/2013, Annexure-A is hereby quashed and the application, dated 17.09.2016, Annexure-E, filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed; and

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21956 WP No. 10870 of 2017

¶33

iii) The petitioners are permitted to further cross-examine respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

NSU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK

Mrs Shamshad Baig v. Dr Deepanju Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Shamshad Baig v. Dr Deepanju Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharath Kumar Vs M/S Vijaya Bank

Smt T Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.H.Anantha Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. P. N. Srinivas Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anjana Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Sri Umachandra Vs Station House Officer/Inspector