The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition u,as hled being .aggrieved by the proceedings dated 23.O3.2022 of [he 2"d respondent 1n returning the Appeal dated i8-03-2021 hled by petitioner under Regulation 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquettc and Ethics) Regulations, 2OO2. The petitioner contended that rejection of Appeal as 'not mainlainable' is illegal, arbrtrary, and contrary to law.

2. Petitioner contends that. the 46 respondent is running a hospital by name Taraporewalla Nursing Home located at East Maredpally, Secunderabad. He stated that his deceased wife u,as under the medical care of the 4d respondent from the second month of her pregnancy. Estimated date of delivery, as given by the 4 , respondent was 25.08.20 13. On 10-08-20 13, petitioner's wife visited the 4tl respondent nursing home for a general check-up along with test reports as advised earlier. After examining the reports, the 4th respondent diagnosed the petitioner's wife with Cholestatic Jaundice and directed her to get admitted to the nursing home, which she did on 10-08-2013 at 8:00 PM. ) Despite knowiedge of the possibilitl c f l)ost-Partum Hemorrhttge (PPH), a severe complication involving uncontrollable bleeding post childbirth, the 4 L respondent conducterl surgery, without taking precautions, due to the said medical rregligence, petitioner's wife died on 1 1-08 2013 at I I :45 AM, although the baby survived. Followinll the incident, petitioner lodged a police complaint or1 O't-09-2013 at

Tukaramgate Police Station, u,hich led to registrat ion of FIR No. II7 of 2Ol3 undcr Section 3O4-A IPC agzrir-rst the 4s respondent. A charge sheet u'as filed and thc cttse vras registered as C.C. No. 2407 of 2019 on the I'ile ,rf tht: Hon'ble XXII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabitd. Subsequently, petitioner t-rled a complair-rt with the Medical C)ouncil of India on 29-08 2013 requestirrg dist:iplinary action ag:rinst the 4d' respondent which referred the compiaint to the 3rd respondent, i.e. the State Medical Cour: cil (Telangana State Medical Council), which, in turn, forwarded thc case to the Ethics C:ommittee. The Ethics Committee, irft,:r inquiry, observed that the allegations of negligence and clefit:tency in service nrade by the petitioner were not unreasonitble and recommended a warning to the 4s responden. to bc more cautious in observing medical procedurcs and protocols. Bascd J J on the said findings, the 3'd respondent - State Medical Council passed order dated O3-O2-2O21 approving the recommendations through the Executive Committee, thereby issuing a u'arning to the 4fr respondent Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order dated O3-O2-2O21, prelerred Appeal on l8-O3-2O21 to the 2"d respondent - National Medical Commission which returned the appeal uia Proceedings dated 23-03-2O22, citing that the Appeal was not maintainable under Section 3O(3) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2Ol9 (for short, the 2O 19 ActJ . Despite this, petitioner re-submitted the Appeal on 16-08-2022, requesting reconsideration. The Appdal was again returned through Proceedings dated 03-lO-2O22, stating that reconsideration could not be acceded to. According to petitioner, the ground for rejection that a non-medical practitioner cannot file an appeal under Section 30[3) is misconceived. He contends that Section 30(3) says that 'A Medical practitioner or professional who is aggrieved by any action taken by a State Medical Council under sub-section (2) may prefer an appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board against such action'. Petitioner argued that this provision does not bar Appeals by non-medical persons and is, in fact, applicable only to medical 4 practitioners. Thus, appll,ing Section 30(3) t,r his case is erroneou s. It is stated, petitioner is entitled to lile an Appeal under Regulation 8.8 of the Indian Medical Coun< il (Prolessional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 20O2. The said Regulation states: 'Any person aggrieved by thc decision of the State Mcdical Council on any complaint against ir delinquent physician, shall have the righ t to Iile an Appe zrl to the MCI within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the ordcr passed by the said medical council'. Though the lndian Medical Council Act, 1956 was repealed by the Na .ional Medical Commission Act, 2019 (Act 30 ot ZO1O1, all Regr- lations framed under the former Act are saved under Section 60 ol the new Act. Thereforr:, Regulation 8.8 of the 2002 Regulatior s continues to be valid and enforceable. It is stated that Lhe 2,r(l respondent erroneously returned his Appeal by wrongly in .,oking Sect ion 30(3) of the NMC Act, 2019, despite the appeal being maintainable under Regulation 8.8 of tlne 2OO2 Rr gulatior-rs.

3. The Deputy Secretary, National Medical Commission (NMC) stated in the counter thaL under Lhe 2Ol9 Act, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB) of the NMC is empowered to decide Appeals filed onll by registered ) ,i medical practitioners. Section 27 (l)(dl read with Sections 3O(3) and 30(4) provides for such Appeals exclusively by registered medical professionals. Hence, private parties or complainants, such as the petitioner, do not have the statutory right to hle appeals belbre the NMC against decisions of State Medical Councils. The question of whether the EMRB can entertain Appeals filed by non medical practitioners has been conclusively settled by various judgments. The Delhi High Court has consistently held in cases includiog Ritu Venna u. National Medical Commission (WP(C) No. 1316312021), Amit Kumar Agaru.nl & Ors. u. (Inion of Ind-ia 1We1C) No. 7 566120221, Surender Kumar Dobas & Anr. u. NMC (WP(C) No. 13757 l2o22l, Amit Kumar Aganaal & Ors. u. Union of Indio (LPA No. 687 /2022), and Suzil DLutll u. IIMC (wP(C) No. 4067 12023), that only registered medical practitioners may appeal before the EMRB. These judgments reiterate the NMC's position that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain Appeals by private complainants. While Regulation 8.8 of the Indian Medicai Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2OO2 earlier allowed both private complainants and medical professionals to hle Appeals, this provision has been eclipsed by 6 . :.::. the provisions of the NMC Act, 2O 19. The NMC Act, be ing a parliamerrtary statute, supersedes the earlier regrlations made under ther Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Therr:fore, after the enforcement of the NMC Act on 25.09 .2O2O, onlv rcgistered medical professionals are statutorily allowed to file such appeals, and Regulation 8.8 is rendered inoperative. It is pertinent to state that by virtue of Section 61 of theNMC Act, t2002 Rt:gulations are still invogue tillfresh re gulations are notihed by the NMC. Section 61(2) clarihes that, despite th: repeal of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the standards, requirements, and other provisions of that Act, and the Rules arLd Regulations made thereunder, shall continue to rcmain in force until replaced ,rr superseded under the National Mediczil Commission Act,2O19. The proviso to Section 61(2) provides that any actions taken under the repeaied enactment shall be dtremed to have been takr:n under the corresponding provisions of the new Acl and shall remain in force unless and until specihcally replaced. The respondent submits that the National Medical Commission promotes medical ethics and maintains a National Register lbr licensed medical practitioners as well as a separate National Register for Comrnunity Health Providers. Section 1O of l the 2019 Act outlines the powers and functions of the Commission. Additionally, Section 27 provides powers and functions of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. Section 30 pertains to State Medical Councils. The proviso to Section 30(2) clarifies that until a State Medical Council is established in a particular State, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board is authorized to receive complaints regarding professional or ethical misconduct against registered medical praclitioners in that State. Section 30(3) states that a medical practitioner aggrieved by an order of a State Medical Council may filc an appeal before the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. Further, Section 30(4) provides that a second appeal against a decision of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board may be made to the Commission within 60 days. Section 31 provides for maintaining the National and State Registers, while Section 33 outlines the rights-and obligations of those licensed to practice and registered on these registers. Section 34 lays down the restrictions on practicing medicine. Section 57 allows the Commission to make regulations, following prior publication, to carry out the provisions of the Act. It is stated, as per Section 27 (ll(d) read with Section 3O(3) the Ethics and Medical Registration Board adjudicates ; I I I 8 only those appeals that are hled by medical practitioners who are aggrieved by decisions of State Medical Councils. Section 30(4) prc,vides for a second appeal to the Commission if the practitiorrer is dissatisfied with the decision of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. The relevant provision of Section 30 is reprocluced to clarify that only medical pt actitioners or professionals can appeal, and that the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or State Medical Council m ust provide a hearing Lrefore any action is taken, including the :mposition o[ a monetar) penal[r. is stated that petitioner has allege,J that his wife passed away due to the alleged medicat negligence of the 4fi respondent. In support of this allegation, the p(titioner states that he submitted a complaint dated 29.08.20 13 to the erstwhile Medical Council of India. This c;mplaint was subseque:ntly forwarded to the Telangana State M:dical Council, which is respondent no. 3 in this case. The Ti langana State Medical (louncil issued an order dated O3.O2.2C21 u'hereby it issued a warning to Dr. Shirin N. Taraporewalla, rrdvising her to be more careful in observing procedures and plotocols ln the future. Aggrieveil by the order dated O3.O2.2O21 petitioner hled Appeal rlated 18.O3.2021 before the Ethics and Medical .:? :,a:a:-J ./ I I I I t I r B a I I i 9 Registration Board of the National Medical Commission. In view of the legal position under Section 27 (d) read with Section 30(3) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and based on the decision taken by the Board in its rneeting held on

06.10.202l , the Appeal was returned as the Board is not empowered to entertain appeals by private parties or complainants. The decision was communicated to petitioner by way of letter dated 23.O3.2O22. Petitioner once again requested respondent to consider his Appeal as a special case, through his letter dated 16.O8.2022. The respondent, uia reply dated

03.1O.2022 reiterated that it was unable to entertain the Appeal due to the constraints imposed by the provisions of the 20 19 Act. It is submitted that the Ethics and Medicai Registration Board (EMRB) of the National Medical Commission (NMC), under the provisions of the 2019 Act is empou,ered only to entertain and decide Appeals liled by registered medical practitioners. Section 27 (ll(dl read with Section 3O(3) and 3O(a) of the NMC Act, 2019, provides a right of appeal against the decision of the concerned State Medical Council before the EMRB and a further appeal to the National Medical Commission; however, such a right is expressly available only to registered medical professionals. 10 It is furlher stated that the issue raised in the present pet it ion-whether the trMRB is empov'ered to hear Appeals prclcrred by private parties or complainants (non- medical practitioners such as petitioner) against orders passed by State Mcdical Councils-stands conclusively settlecl. lt has been hekl that the answering respondent is not competent to adjudicate Appeals preferred by private parties or complainants and can on It, r-'ntertain those hled by regis ,ered medical practitionr:rs. Accoerding to this respondent, thr: presenL Writ Petition i's squarcly cove re d by the judgment dat,:cl 29.O3.2023 passed b,y thc Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunil Dhull us. National ,lfiedir:al Commission, wherein jt was again held that an appeal undcr- Section 30(3) of the NMC Act, 2O 19, is not maintain:rblt: by a private party/ complainant. It is further stated that petitioner's reliance on Regulation 8.8 of the 2022 Regulations is misco:-rceived. While Regulation 8.fl did provide for a right of atr,peal to both complain,ant s and registered practitioners under the erstwhile IMC reglmc, thc enactment of the NMC Act, 2019, has supersed,:d this position. Section 27 (1\(d) read u-ith Sectron 3O(3) and 3O(4) now restricts appellate jurisdictio-r to registered \ practitior-'.crs alone. In the hierarchy of laws, the ;trovisions of a 1 I I I i t I I 1l central statute override subordinate legislation such as regulations. Therefore, after the enforcement of the NMC Act on

25.09.2O2O, Regulation 8.8 stands eclipsed and is inoperative to the extent it contradicts the parent Act.

4. Respondent No. 4 hled counter stating that Petitioner has not made out any valid, legal or factual ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is clarihed that based on Section 33-C of the Act, since petitioner does not fall within the category of a ,,medical practi[ioner or professional," the Appeal was not maintainable in law and was thus rightly returned by Respondent No. 2. He is deliberately refraining from responding to the rrr.iJ,r" allegations raised in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Afhdavit filed by petitioner, as those issues are subjudice and are pending adjudication in CC No. 2407 of 2079 on the hle of the XXII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad and in C.C. No. 248 of 2013 on the hle of the State Consumer Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, instituted under the provisions of the Consumer protection Act. Respondent No. 4 further stated that the legislative intent behind Section 3O(3) of the NMC Act, 2O19 is to permit only medical practitioners or professionals to hle Appeals before the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. He contends that ( 12 :i r the law does not permrt third parties, such as Petitioner, who is not a merlical practitioner, to invoke the appella,_e jurisdiction under the said provision. Consequently, it is argued that a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to entertain the said Apperal cannot be issued in law and any such direction would be in violation of the express provision of tho statute.

5. Heard Ms. Bonthu Rajani, counsel rppearing on behalf of Sri Ch,B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel br petitioner, Ms. Sr.n alrna Madhuri, Assislant Government plcader, Ms. Gorantla Sri Ranga Pujitha, Standing Counsel for the 2"d respdnent and Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned Counsel on behalf of the 4th respondent.

6. Thc principal issue is whether a non-medical person can inr,,oke the appellate jurisdiction of th e Ethics and Medical Rr:gistration Board under Section 3O(3) ol the National Medical C<>mmission Act,2019. The statute is clear- in its terms. It limits l.he appellate remedy to "a medical pr.actitioner or professional" aggrieved by an action of the State Medical Council. The petitioner is not a person registered as a medical practitioner, nor is he covered under the scope of a ',medical profession;ll" as dehned under the Act. The zLppeal dated la-O3-2O21 hled by petitioner under Regulatiorr 8.8 of the 13 Regulations, 2OO2, is not maintainable in view of the statutory embargo under Section 30(3) of the NMC Act, 2019. The Delhi High Court in Anit Kuntqr Agarual's

7. case /supra), held in categorical terms that 'if the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is accepted and is held that any person aggrieved by an order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board can file an appeal to the Medical Council then Section 3O(a) oi the Act becomes otiose lt is a well settled principle of law that each section is enacted / legislated for a specihc purpose and the Courts cannot interpret a provision to make it nugatory. It is further settled law that effort should be made to ensure that eaSh provision has its play and is harmoniously construed to iron out arry repugnancy or inconsistency that exists between two provisions in the same enaclment. In view of the above, Section 30 of the Act is a special provision dealing only with disciplinary actions taken against a medical practitioner or professional for ethical and professional misconduct and restricts the right to appeal from an order of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board only to medical practitioners or professional' Section 22(3) of the Act would not apply in case of professional misconduct ' l4 t

8. In the light of the above, the action of Respondent No. 2 in returning the Appeal was, therefore, nrt arbitrary or illegal but strictly in accordance with 1aw. The judgments rendered by the Delhi High Court, cited :;upra by the respondent No.2 also support the said version. Petitioner has no legal right under the said statutory provis:on to file the Appeal and consequently, no mandamus can be issued. As held rn Union of India u. S.B. Vohral, mandamus can be issued only when a public cluty is owed lo petitioner by the respondent and petitioner has a legal right- Neither conditior. is satished in the present case. 9 . Further, petitioner is seeking to raise the same allegatiorrs that arc alrcady bcing adjudicated in C.C. No. 2407 of 2Ol9 on the file of the XXII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and in C.C. No. 248 of 2O13 on the fi.le of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad. The attempt to simultaneously invoke writ jurisdiction in a matter pending before competent judicial and quasi judicial forums i:; a clear abuse of process and cannot l>e entertained. Moreover, allowing such writ petitions would amount to judicially-enlarging the scope of a statutory right, which this ' lzoo+y z s;cc I 50 1 I i t I i ! I I 15 Court is not inclined to do, especially in the presence of clear ! legislative intent that restricts appellate remedies to members of the medical fraternity alone. There is no infringement of any fundamental right nor breach of any statutory duty by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, this Court Iinds no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and holds that Writ Petition is tiable to bc dismissed. The Writ Petitton ts accordinglY, dismissed. No 10 COSTS Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications' if any 1 1. shall stand closed' 'irRUE Ass?sD+okru'ptrt# coPY/' oFFtcER ""''li 'r u:.u*il3i+w:gi+.ga{.#ru;,::":',jr"Hghc'urf Two CD CoPies Btu GJP Pnq. To,

1. 2. 3 + C ! I I I I I I I I t HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.3O47 of 2023 / iJ !\ -_ \i.\1''\{o t 1H€ S 14 .6 \ ()4 10 sEP zui \' \'/- '\')l I I ..i ...t//,-/ \:- i.:e r ir' ,-.' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WI]'HOUT COSTS 5\+\>-i