‘Baseless targeting of doctors’ can prejudice public interest, removal of name from medical register like ‘civil death’: Delhi HC

While observing that a medical professional is expected to possess a minimum standard of competence, the Delhi High Court said that striking off the name of a doctor from the Indian Medical Register “partakes of the character of a civil death” with respect to the doctor’s professional career and that “baseless targeting of doctors” is bound to “seriously prejudice public interest”.

A single-judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar in its July 3 order made these observations while allowing the plea of a practising radiologist against a March 20, 2010 order of the ethics committee of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) that directs the temporary removal of his name from the Indian Medical Register for three months for allegedly falsifying records.

“On reading the impugned order, I am constrained to observe that, having found that no allegation of medical negligence could sustain against the petitioner, the MCI confirmed, against him, the allegation of falsification of records, which was never even raised against him in the first place, merely so as to justify imposition of punishment on the petitioner. This is an extremely unhappy situation,” Justice Shankar observed.

“Striking off, from the Indian Medical Register, of the name of a doctor, partakes of the character of a civil death, insofar as the professional career of the doctor is concerned. The familial and societal ramifications of such a decision, which is bound to garner publicity, are also far and wide reaching,” Justice Shankar said.

The court noted that the allegation against the doctor was of medical negligence, which contributed to the unfortunate death of a woman. The high court said that the allegation of medical negligence has been “categorically found, by the MCI, to be without substance”. The court thereafter said that the doctor was never put to show cause regarding any other allegation, including the allegation of falsification of records.

The court further said that the MCI had dropped the allegation of medical negligence against the doctor and he had been “mulcted with the punishment of removal of his name” from the Indian Medical Register on the ground of falsification of records.

On the allegation of falsification of records, the high court observed that the MCI’s order has “no observation, or finding” to conclude that the doctor had done so.

“There is no reference to the precise record which the petitioner had allegedly falsified. Falsification of records is an extremely serious matter. It partakes of crime, and is coloured by criminal intent. Where the falsification takes place in connection with treatment of a patient, especially where the patient is dead, the seriousness of the misdemeanour increases manifold. A finding of falsification of records cannot, in such circumstances, be lightly arrived at. The order must be precise and exact, regarding the record which was falsified, the manner in which it was falsified at the time when such falsification took place,” Justice Shankar said.

“Prior to arriving at such a finding, the concerned doctor has to be put on notice regarding all these aspects, so that he is in a position to respond. The impugned order merely reiterates the finding of the DMC (Delhi Medical Council) in this regard,” Justice Shankar further said.

Justice Shankar remarked that “a medical professional is expected to possess a certain minimum standard of competence, failing which he has no justification for dispensing medical treatment, and that conduct which fall short of even that minimum medical standard, or display callous negligence to the welfare of a patient, has to be dealt with severely, it is equally true that the scalpel cannot be wielded by a shaking hand. Baseless targeting of doctors, unmindful of the consequences, is bound, in the ultimate eventuate, to seriously prejudice public interest”.

Setting aside the MCI’s order, the high court said that it fails to meet the necessary standard which would persuade the court to come to a finding of falsification of records against the doctor.

No Byline Policy

Editorial Guidelines

Corrections Policy

Source