IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil O.C.P. No.475 of 2006 Date of decision: February 28, 2008. Society for Medical Ethics ...Petitioner(s) v. Dr. P.C. Kesavankutty Nayar & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral) The petitioner, a self-acclaimed Society for Medical Ethics, filed CWP No.470 of 2003. The above stated writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. Keeping in view the reports submitted by the inquiry Committee constituted by the Director, Medical Research and Medical Education, Punjab, we feel that it may not be desirable on our part, at this stage, to comment on the intricacies of the issues raised in the present petition. Nevertheless, since one of the allegations of the petitioner is that despite their representations to various authorities, including the Medical Council of India, for taking action against the Management of the Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for alleged mal-practices, no action has been taken by the said authorities, we direct the Medical Council of India to look into the representations stated to have been filed by the petitioner's society and take appropriate action thereon. Since the representations are stated to have been made as far back as in the year 2003, we expect and hope that the Medical Council shall take a final decision thereon as expeditiously as practicable and in any case, not later than 4 months from today. To ensure compliance, a copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner dasti for onward transmission to the Medical Council along with the copies of the representations filed with them. It goes without saying that the Medical Council shall take a final decision on these representations after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.” In addition to the reliefs sought by the petitioner society in the representations which were directed to be disposed of by the Medical Council of India in terms of the above reproduced directions, the petitioner made yet another representation dated 4.9.2005, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-15. On a perusal of the above stated representation prima-facie it appears that the same was targeted against a few doctors serving with Daya Nand Medical College & Hospital at Luhdiana, may be due to professional rivalry. Be that as it may, the representations have been duly considered by the Medical Council of India as is apparent from the averments made by them in their detailed affidavit dated 11.8.2006 and thereafter the decision taken thereupon has been communicated to the Executive Member of the petitioner society vide an order dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure-A), appended with the additional affidavit dated 7.5.2007. Even thereafter also, the Ethics Committee constituted by the Medical Council of India has heard the representative of the petitioner on 21.1.2008. It appears that during the aforesaid hearing, the petitioner again wanted certain information against individual doctors, which is totally beyond the scope of its propagated object of “medical ethics”. The direction issued by this Court to the Medical Council of India to apprise itself regarding the larger issue of 'medical ethics' cannot be permitted to be misused to settle scores with individual doctors. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is any willful or deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court. Disposed of. Rule discharged. February 28, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge