'Medical Practitioners Must Be Protected From Onslaught Of Frivolous Complaints': Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For National Medical Council

The Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed an order dated May 4, 2021 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) suspending a gastroenterologist by observing that principles of natural justice were not given credence to. The Court also laid down exhaustive guidelines that are to be included in the new Regulations that are to be framed under the National Medical Council (NMC) Act, 2019 for effective handling of complaints against medical practitioners. Justice R Mahadevan observed, "It is the responsibility of the Medical Council to proceed against the medical practitioners.. At the same time, the Medical Council also owes a duty to protect the medical practitioners, who are rendering yeomen service for the betterment of the general public, from the onslaught of frivolous complaints or to proceed against them in a hasty manner." The Court further opined that in the larger interest of the society the highest degree of care and caution must be exercised by medical practitioners however it is equally important to acknowledge the services of medical practitioners. "Regard must be had to the fact that they work under tremendous pressure - physically, mentally, morally and also professionally. They cannot be expected to perform their best, if the swords of damocles are kept hanging on their head constantly. Enough protection needs to be given to the medical practitioners in order that they may not be penalised, targeted or punished, unjustly", the Court observed. The directions were passed while allowing a write petition moved by gastroenterologist P. Basumani who had put in 35 years of practice against an order of the TNMC removing the petitioner's name from the Medical Register for a period of six months. The Court held that the petitioner had been punished without being afforded an opportunity to defend himself effectively by cross examining the witnesses and so on. In the instant case, the petitioner had treated a patient in a private hospital in Chennai from September 27, 2015 till the latter's death on October 11, 2015. Subsequent to the patient's death, the patient's daughter had lodged a complaint with the Medical Council of India accusing a Coimbatore-based doctor Radhakrishnan of having issued a false fitness certificate for her father when he was actually hospitalised. The complainant had alleged that her father's immovable properties worth Rs 50 crore had been transferred to the name of Dr. Radhakrishnan's son-in-law on the basis of the false medical fitness certificate. She had also lodged a police complaint. The police authorities were informed by the Medical Superintendent of the concerned hospital that the complainant's father was conscious on October 8, 2015. Thereafter during the enquiry conducted by the TNMC, the petitioner had deposed that the patient was not conscious on October 8, 2015 and that he was not oriented to understand the legal documents. On the basis of such an averment, the TNMC then proceeded to remove the petitioner's name from the medical register for alleged misconduct pertaining to the furnishing of false information to the police authorities and having facilitated the accused to escape from the clutches of law. Justice Mahadevan disapproved the TNMC's order of suspension by noting that there was absolutely no ground for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. He also pointed out that the enquiry conducted by the disciplinary committee was not against the petitioner and that he was summoned only to give material evidence. "The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witness, whose statement or document was used against him and put forth his defence before the committee as to whether he was aware of the contents of the letter addressed to the Medical Superintendent and for that matter, he was not aware of the reply given by the Medical Superintendent. This Court also, from the records, is unable to find even any probability of joint decision or instruction from the petitioner to the Medical Superintendent for him to issue such a letter contrary to the medical records of the patient to the police authorities. Thus, the violation of the principles of natural justice has caused serious prejudice to him", the Court noted. Thus the Court observed that the act of the disciplinary committee being quasi judicial authority, to recommend for imposition of punishment on the petitioner without providing any opportunity to him 'is wholly unjustified and the same is liable to be set aside'. It was also underscored that the principles of natural justice is not an 'empty formality'. In the absence of observance to the principle, the element of 'fairness' in the action is removed and "arbitrariness" creeps in, the Court stated. Accordingly, the Court issued the following guidelines which the TNMC was directed to refer to as a Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) for the purpose of effective complaint-handling mechanism, so as to...

'Medical Practitioners Must Be Protected From Onslaught Of Frivolous Complaints': Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For National Medical Council

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags