Allowed

Dr.S.Ganapathy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2020WP(C)/20695/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Travancore Cochin Medical Council and other respondents to expeditiously take action on a complaint regarding doctor misconduct after verifying no prior court interdiction, with an opportunity to be given to all concerned within three months under Regulation 8 of the 2002 Regulations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to take appropriate action on Ext.P1 complaint within three months after affording opportunity to the petitioner and all affected persons.

Dr.S.Ganapathy Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.20695 OF 2020(J)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 29TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.20695 OF 2020(J)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

DR.S.GANAPATHY AGED 72 YEARS S/O.LATE. ADVOCATE K.SADANANDAN, “ANJALI”, MARUTHADI P.O., KOLLAM 691 003. BY ADVS. SRI.R.RENJITH SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 035.

¶12

3 THE REGISTRAR THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 035

¶13

4 THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695 035

¶14

R2 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.VINITHA.B. ,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.20695 OF 2020(J)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 21st day of October 2020

¶20

The petitioner points out that Ext.P1 complaint was submitted before the respondents 2 and 3 pointing out serious misconduct by certain doctors and the respondents are not taking any action and it is pointed out that the respondents 2 and 3 are not taking any action in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.

¶21

I heard the learned Standing Counsel also.

¶22

It is seen that there is no interdiction from any court in proceeding with or in taking a decision on Ext.P1 complaint. Therefore, there shall be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to see that appropriate action is taken on Ext.P1 complaint after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as all other persons against whom the complaint is made and all who are likely to be affected as expeditiously as possible in accordance

¶23

WP(C).No.20695 OF 2020(J)

¶24

¶25

with the provisions contained in the Act within a period of three

months.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

WP(C).No.20695 OF 2020(J)

¶31

¶32

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOSTAT DATED 7.10.2019 PETITIONER BEFO	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOSTAT DATED 26.11.201 PETITIONER BEFO	COPY OF THE APPLICATION 9 SUBMITTED BY THE RE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOSTAT DATED 9.12.2019 RESPONDENT TO T	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH HE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOSTAT REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITION RESPONDENT.	COPY OF THE DATED 7.05.2020 SUBMITTED ER BEFORE THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOSTAT REPRESENTATION THE 2ND RESPOND	COPY OF THE DATED 18.5.2020 ISSUED BY ENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOSTAT DATED 27.7.2020 REGISTRAR OF TH PETITIONER.	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY E 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOSTAT DATED 8.7.2020 PETITIONER BEFO	COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE RE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOSTAT 17.7.2020 GIVEN PETITIONER.	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Dr.S.Ganapathy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Ganapathy v. State of Kerala

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

Chicago Constructions International Private Limited Vs Kerala Water Authority

Nrupa Jacob, Vs a.Shajahan

Thomas K.Paul Vs Kerala Water Authority

Radhakrishnan K. K. Vs the Manager, Union Bank of India

Krishnakumar.K Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Sherwin Abraham John, Vs the District Level Authorization Committee