✦ High Court of India · 24 Oct 2025

Dr.TKannaiah v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Case Details High Court of India · 24 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
24 Oct 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,112 words

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.ANURAG Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SMT K.SWAPNA MADII ,Rt, AGp FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SAMA SANDEEP Fll :DDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - The Court made the following ORDER l I i i i I 1 I I i i i l l I I : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3192L of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the orders passed by Respondent No.2 uide Reference No. TMSC/344lEthics/Case No.15/2021, dated 24.O9.2025, wherein petitioner was directed to surrender his Permanent Registration Certificate bearing No.59133 and was also penalized with the removal of his name from the Medical Register of the Telangana Medical Council for one (1) year, as being bad, arbitrary, illega1, violative of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14, 19 , atd 2l of the Constitution of India

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K. Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health, and Family Welfare, for respondent No. 1. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner, Dr. T. Kannaiah, an MBBS graduate from Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (2008) and a registered medical practitioner with the Telalgana Medical Council (Reg. .-\. "-*.1 2 N8l(J w.P. No.31921 of 2025 Nr,.59133), has training and experience in hair t: Lnsplantation . Respondent No.3, who had earlier consultec Dr. Bhavani Prasad, sought autologous fat transfer surgeryI rder his care, '"vith the petitioner assistilg at her request € nd managing scheduling' and formalities. The patient u 1 lenl.ent pre- operative evaluations, was advised on post-opeli tive care, but failed to follorn, medical instructions, concealec her diabetic conditiqn, and later developed complications. 1 hough expert opinions found no negligence by the operatin 3 surgeon, the Telangana State Medical Council issued a shov -cause notice and, without giving petitioner a proper opporturLr -y to respond, suspended him for one yea-r while exoneradr 3 Dr.Bhavani Prasad. The petitioner contends that the ordt: is arbitrary, based on irrelevart allegations, and in violati rn of natural justice, thereby causing serious harm to h .r professional reputation and livelihood.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Medical Health, and Family Welfare submits that, based on the expla rations of Dr. Bhavani Prasad and Dr. T.Kannaiah, the Ccr ncil found it necessary to hold an enquiry under Sections 1I, ald 17 of the 3 NAKJ W.P. No.319Zr. of 2025 Telangana Medical Practitioners' Registration Act, 1968. The Chairman directed the Registrar to condr,rct the enquiry through the Ethics Committee. It is stated that Dr. T. Kannaiah hol,1s rn15, an MBBS degree and does not have a recognize'-i postgraduate degree or diploma in Dermatologu, Plastic Surgery, or related specialties, which are required for practicing dermatologz, cosmetolory, and hair transplantation. Therefore, registration of such additional qualifications with the Council is \ not applicable. It is further stated that Dr.T.Kannaiah has been informed of his right to appeal the order dated 24.09.2025 before the National Medical Commission within 6O days under I Reguiation 8.8 of the IMC (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2OO2, and Section 30(a) of the National Medica-l Commission Act, 2O 19.

5. Upon consideration of the material on record and the submissions of learned counsel, this Court finds that the action of the Telangana Medical Council in directing the petitioner to surrender his registration and removing his name from the register for one year is lawful, justified, ald in accordance with 4 NBK,I W.P. t{o.31921 of 2025 - \ -=.!tr|-< '\l I \ the provisions of the Act. There is no merit in tl e u.rit petition, ald the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, thc writ petition is dismissec . I{owever, the petitioner is at libert5z to file an appeal against he order dated

24.09.2025 before the National Medical Comm r sion within 6O days. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pend r g, shall stand closed ''xst; //TRUE COPY// I ; \\ SD/. C. DEEPIKA STANT REGISTRAR =* / \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Medical, Health and *.\,U1*, Secretariat building. State of Telangana at Hydera\{d 2. The Chairman. Telangana tVedical Council, Office a-t S t Post Office, Opposite Women's College, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to GP FOR I/EDICAL HEALTH AND FAIVIL / Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI SAIVA SANDEEP REDDY, Advocate (l 6. Two CD Copies lfare Deparlment, Ithan Bazar, Near WELFARE, High PUC) To SA GJP Yt- HIGH COURT DATED:24110t2025 I I : I I !LtJ 2U5 \...|,' ri. 1 ,:,/ ORDER WP.No.31921 of 2O2S DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 4, .KU ) ^q- (9\ 'w^O\'

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments