Allowed

Dr. Babu Reddy T S v. Mr P Thyagaraj

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024WP/24113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Doctors challenged a Medical Council order requiring them to lead evidence before the complainant in a negligence enquiry. The Court held this reversed the Council's own procedure of complainant's evidence first and quashed the order, remitting the matter for fresh proceedings within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 20.05.2023 of Karnataka Medical Council quashed; matter remitted to Council to follow its procedure and conclude enquiry within 12 weeks; parties to co-operate.

Dr. Babu Reddy T S Vs Mr P Thyagaraj — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24113 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. BABU REDDY T S AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRIRAMAPPA, ADDRESS: NARAYANA MULTISPECALITY HOSPITAL, BASANT HEALTH CENTRE BUILDING, NO.1, 18TH MAIN, OPPOSITE HSR CLUB, SECTOR-3, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DR. GUNDURAO HARSH JOSHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O MALHARRAO G JOSHI, ADDRESS: NARAYANA MULTISPECALITY HOSPITAL, BASANT HEALTH CENTRE BUILDING, NO.1, 18^TH MAIN, OPPOSITE HSR CLUB, SECTOR-3, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. DEEPAK S. SARANGMATH.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR P THYAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.201 A, 22 CROSS, 17^TH MAIN, 3^RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶18

KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL NO.16/6, MILLERS TANK BED ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(R1 - SERVED)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R2 I.E. THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL IN KMC (ENQ) NO.08 OF 2023.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the second respondent - Karnataka Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’ for short) directing that the petitioners, who are respondents to lead evidence at the outset and the complainant would submit his rebuttal later.

¶25

Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Srinivasan Raghavan appearing for the petitioners and the complainant Mr.P.Thyagaraj, in-person.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶28

3. The facts, in brief are as follows:

¶29

The petitioners are Medical Practitioners working as consultants in Cardiology Department of Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. On 27.10.2020 at about 11.47 a.m., the respondent in-person gets admitted to the hospital complaining of chest pain. It is claimed that he was immediately attended to and diagnosed to have acute coronary syndrome with anterior wall myocardial infraction. Coronary Angiogram is claimed to have been done which was suggestive of double vessel disease, Left Anterior Descending (LAD) artery blockage being the principle vessel with maximum block and left circumflex artery being non infract related coronary artery.

¶30

On the aforesaid problems that was projected after assessment of the petitioners, Angiogram was conducted. This led to certain complications to the first respondent and the first respondent after he was discharged from the hospital, knocked at the doors of the Council alleging that the petitioners have been negligent in taking care of the first respondent.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶32

The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of

¶33

the claim of the petitioners or the first respondent before the Council. What has driven the petitioners to this Court is the impugned order, which directs evidence at the outset to be led by the petitioners, who are respondents and the complainant would lead rebuttal evidence.

¶34

Learned Senior counsel would submit that it is contrary to the procedure established by the Council itself. Therefore, he would submit that the matter be remitted back to the hands of the Council to follow the procedure that the Council follows in every case.

¶35

The first respondent-in-person would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned Senior counsel to contend that nothing remains for the first respondent to prove, as they have admitted the guilt and therefore, they will have to prove the allegations to be untrue by leading evidence at the outset. He would submit that the Council is empowered to call on any witness at any point in time and therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶38

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶39

contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶40

The issue lies in a narrow compass. What led the first respondent before the Council is the allegation that he was not taken care in a proper manner. Taking care of, would be that both the blocks were not removed, which led to the first respondent suffering health complications after the discharge. Therefore, he knocks at the doors of the Council alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioners, who are Doctors who treated the first respondent.

¶41

Before the Medical Council, a show cause notice is issued to the petitioners to appear and submit their cause. While replying to the show cause notice, the petitioners have stated so as to why the other blockage was not removed. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:

¶42

“4. Coronary angiogram was done which was suggestive of double vessel disease, Left Anterior Descending artery (“LAD”) blockage being the principle culprit vessel and Left Circumflex artery (“LCX”) being

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶45

non infarct related coronary artery. Hence Percutaneous Cutaneous Intervention (“PCI”) TO LAD was done. Doing a PCI in LCX (non infarct related artery) required more contrast which in turn would increase the risk of contrast induced kidney failure which could lead to detrimental complications for the patient.

¶46

5. Owing to uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and renal dysfunction, PCI TO LCX was planned as a staged procedure. In acute myocardial infarction, the myocardium supplied by infarct related artery will be stunned, if the procedure is attempted in non-infarct related artery (in this case LCX) could damage the functioning myocardium. Ref: European Society of Cardiology and Cardiological Society of India (Guidelines attached).”

¶47

The procedure that is followed by the Council is documented. It depicts the stages of proceedings as per the procedure being followed in the Council in respect of conduct of an enquiry. Clauses 11 and 12 of the procedure reads as follows:

¶48

"11. Therefore the oral and documentary evidence on the side of Complainant will be recorded by giving sufficient opportunity.

¶49

12. Upon closure of the evidence on the side of the Complainant, the Medical Practitioner will be given an opportunity to put-forth the oral and the documentary evidence on his/her side by giving sufficient opportunity"

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶52

The procedure would indicate that oral and documentary evidence on the side of the complainant would be recorded by giving sufficient opportunity at the outset, upon closure of evidence on the side of the complainant, the medical practitioner will be given an opportunity to put-forth the oral and documentary evidence again by giving sufficient opportunity.

¶53

If this is the procedure that is followed by the Council, which is in tune with the general Principles of law, it cannot be made topsy-turvy by passing the impugned order, which directs the petitioners/respondents to lead evidence at the outset and the complainant would lead his rebuttal evidence.

¶54

The justification of the complainant, the first respondent is that the petitioners have admitted the guilt in the afore-quoted paragraphs 4 and 5 in reply to the show cause notice. The plea of admission of guilt is unacceptable, as there

¶55

is no unequivocal admission of guilt by the Doctors i.e., the petitioners in the aforesaid paragraphs. They have explained

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶58

the procedure that they did adopt for not removing the block in the second artery. However, it would be a matter of evidence to be proved and disproved by the respective parties. Since the procedure is being found fault with by this Court, the order that is impugned would lose its legal legs to stand and the matter be remitted back to the hands of the Council to appropriately follow the procedure that it follows in terms of the stages, as depicted in the guidelines.

¶59

The first respondent would submit that the

¶60

proceedings are being dragged by the petitioners on one pretext or the other, which is disputed by the learned Senior counsel of the petitioners.

¶61

However to resolve the issue, I deem it appropriate to direct the Council to conclude the proceedings, within twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, if not earlier. It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis would co-operate to the closure of the proceedings within twelve weeks, as is indicated.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:432 WP No. 24113 of 2023

¶64

For all the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶67

ii) The order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Karnataka Medical Council, stands quashed.

¶68

iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Council to follow the procedure, as is observed in the course of the order and take the issue to its logical conclusion, with an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

¶69

iv) The parties to the lis shall co-operate to such closure of the proceedings.

¶70

v) The Council shall afford adequate opportunity to all the parties.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

¶73

Dr. Babu Reddy T S v. Mr P Thyagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Babu Reddy T S v. Mr P Thyagaraj

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

Mr Abdul Latheef @ Atbel Latheef Kannagar Moidu Vs the Authrized Officer and Chief Manager Bank of Baroda

Sri. Gururaj Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Dheeban Jagadeesan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri .K. Sajan Aiyappa , Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

The Karnataka State Government Grade I Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya Hospital Vs the Idfc First Bank Litd