SN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARW W. P. NO.S5-53 OF 20Q3 y PETITIONER Ashok Dolaskar, S/o Shri Anirit Rao Dolaskar, aged About 48 years, Proprietor Sagar TV Sen^ice, Handipara Road, Shiv Nagar,Raipur[CG] "€ RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. ...•^".•x^^;.: .^^ .^^" Medical Council of India Through its Secretary, Aiwan-e-Galib Marg, Kotla >.^'**'^^S^' Road' Oppt. Mata Sundari ?'^c^<' ' College [forWomen], New Delhi - 110 002 [India] Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, through Registrar, F-7, Sanchi Coniplex, Oppt. Board Office, Bhopal [M.P.] PinCode 462011 Dr,[Smt.] Jaishree Padarha, Opposite Samrat Cinema, Raipur - 492001 [C.G.] Dr. Prakash Bhagwat, 11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur 492001 [CG] WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTSORARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DERECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDBRS: .•—.&».-iifriitiii—ii T- XI-HC-22 -3^ ^NKTS^ ^Til^Ko, ^mT^y: 37T^T "q^? ..^...f.:.(yo.,..i.$.>:^(0^ •••^' 200 WHC'IT^b^lcb '^S^VC 3?n^T^?r fy\\^ 3TT^T $t)^iGb ^Ra ' rr ^r^... /-^^._ ^TT^T ^RTTW^cT 09/02/2004 Shri Mardndra Shrivastva, coi Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Addl. Umon of Iiidia/respondent no, 1, By ttiis writ petitioii under India, fhe petitioner is challengii|ig respondent no. 1 ia not takiag apprc no, 3 and 4 who are practiciiig as N duly rcgistered by Medical Council wMcli tliey claim. The case of fhe petitioner isj abdoiYiinal pam sought miedical Agrawal who advised the petitioi Prakash Bhyagvi'sat, fhe respondei^ contacted on 19/12/1998 and the tests aad he was required to gi^ checked up and io.vestigated by an^ the rcspoudentiio,3 advised to tal^ no.3 aftcr nial^nig certain iiivestigal sufferiiig from. Caiicer. Petitionerj seut the said report to respondent undergo operation aiid deinanded to go for iiltra-sonography test, freated the said ultra-sonogi'apliy tlie petitioner. Even thereafter petitioner to go for operation aiid 4s (insel for fhe petitioner. Govt, Staiidtag Couusel for c»)l<li<n^l4TTF?^f Tt 'fe^ <pi1^i< ^T ^TpcTH 3Rf?^T C^ntral trticle 226 of tiie Constitution of the inaction on fhe part of ^priate action agamst respondents tedical Practitiouers wifhout beiag |f India ia respect of specializatiou tliat the petitioner developed aa |treatQient froin one Dr. Sajjan icr to take treatoaient froni Dr. jt. no.4. The pctitiouer, thereafter, l:>etitioiier was subjected to certain sample of body ceU for beiag >ther Dr. (Mrs). Jaishree Padraha, ccrtaiu nicdiciaics, Rcspondent ion, declared ftiat flie petitioner is |was shocked, Respondent no,3 io,4, who advised fhe petitioner to !s.40,000/-, He was also advised When fhe petitioner got hioisetf fcest mdicated normal condition of )r,Pi'akash Bhagwat advised tlie |sked him to deposit Rs.40,000/-. XI-HC-22 '3~ocT ^|^j<n4, ^Tii<4<lto, ^Krtl^ay 3:IT^T'^T R'li^ ^^ »)Hi<=h ^f^a 3?T^T 1^W ..^..:S..:^:^..s.ll()^ ^IWlT$hH|cfr» ^^ 200 'fN^ST' 31T^T ^<TT^R Trf^cf ~ O 1-- The inedicin.e^ which were pres also taken by fhe petitiouer, several inedical teste like X-] Barium etc. It was also rcpor|< does not suffer from Caiicer. which fhe report was to fhe effe|( uot froni aiiy cancerous diseas| check zip m TATA Memorial final report was given on 18/0 that tlie petitioner does not Petitioner suffered lot of niental iacurred heavy expeuditure, aggrievcd of fhe negUgent, caUu| aiicl conduct of tiie ftvo petittoner made complaint wifti| Madhya Pradesh Medical initiated enqiiiries, A copy o^ petitioner to Medical Couucil} Amiexure P/l. On the Councii of India directed fhe Council, Bhopal to hold necessary action, Madhya Pradj( issucd notices to the conceniej enqairy regaixlirig their registi^ Degree vide its memo dated herewifli as Annexure P/3. Doct5rs Couiicil coBipla^iit enqT|ny ^t^id^li Hi^<yiT ^ fc^l if^-^K ^srf^RW^r |cribed by the respondent no.4 were Thereafter, fhe petitioner went for - Chest, Ultra Sonography, X-ray ^ed iB. all such reports tliat petitioner Petitioner got himsetf checkecl up to fe|ct fhat he is suffermg from Ulcer and ts^, Thereafter; fhe petitiouer went to C^iicer Hospital at Muizibai iii which j/2001 m which it was again clarified ^yffer fix)m aay cancerous disease. agony, undergone several tests arid The petitioner feelmg seriously aad irrespoasible act aad behaviour ^ Uie respondents 110. 3 aad 4, Medical Council of India as also the U3|icil at Bhopal. Both fhe authorities the report/coinplaiut inade by the of India is annexed hercwith as made by ffae pctitioner, Medical Secretaiy, Madhya Pradesh Medical f^ry, Hiake iiivestigation aiid to take ?sh Medical Council, Bhopal, ia tiini, Doctors aad other Doctors isiakiag iti^tion, Degree of M.B.B.S. and P.G. 1, a copy ofwhichis aiinexed A|iotlier raeBio was written by the said ^sti&tion, 17^01/2002, /1. XI-HC-22 ^IT^T^T f<rii<=h ^V^ $hHi<^ <i(ia '3~5Er '^Tpn^ra, ^Til^^Ko, fa^iwy 3^?T 'q^? ^^ .Ajo.-L^n/ o^ wffCTr^^w^''*'*''*''*''*''*'''*'*'''*''^**''^^ 200 'I^^T' 3^T?^ITW^f^T -3. l^ Pradelsh Secretejiy becji Coudcil, respondent no.2 - Madhya 17/04/2002 a copy ofwhich i^ Petitioner had inade a detaile^l 28/05/2002. Madhya notices to tlie rcspoiidente iio.j 09/07/2002 remmdiag Bhopal tto.at several enquides iB.forciatioii sought has not done^ ultiaiiately fhe petitione| Madhya Pradesh Medical petitioner has also subiaitted Medical Council of India. Vid4 was iafonued bv fhe Madhya after makiag ceilam enquuiej Meclical Council of India for date no orders have been representation on 04/ 10/ 2002} till date an year has clapsed, n<^t] Leanied counsel for the m tlie Medical Coiiucil of Indial India. Act. Thex^foi^, the autlioritv in the matter to respondente no,3 aiid 4. He rcspondents no<3 and 4 are thej specialized ia certaia arcas, bu| <=?»i<ti<n^r( -Hi^<?iT^ fa^ <fa^.i< ^^NH^TI^T P|rade^h Medical Council, Bhopal on annexed herewifh as Anuexure P/4, coinplaiat to respondent uo.2, on Mcdical Council, Bhopal issued 3 aiid 4. Petitioner sent a letter 011 ts|iy, Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, were inade by fhe petitioner aad stippMed to htm, ¥/hcnuofhiag was gave a remiader to fhe Secretaiy, 4cU, Bhopal on 19/09/2002 aiid tiie I'eniin.ders to fhe respondent uo.l. - memo dated 26/09/2002 petitioner ^radesh Mcdical Cozuicil, Bhopal that the matter has been referred to appropriate action, However, tiU The petitioner agaui niade a to fhe Medical CoiincU of India, but i^thio.g has been done. ijetitioner submits fh.at the registration I is done under the Medical Council of Council of India. is appropriate Ijake appropriate action against fhe [urthcr submits fhat even though the [registered M,B.B.S., tliey ai'e claimmg iii fact tliey are not specialized iii any ta^ing pa^sed. (Ahio.i Meldical XI-HC-22 '^ET ^ww^ ^•ai^Ko, t^TRTy 3H^T/q^^ ^^.AJ^.-L^^IO^ WWTf^HT^ '^ '200 •^^r' s^r^T ^n^S^T^T ^^^ ^Ra c f/ ^ ^TI^T ^<nw -g1N ~ o^ Couilcil Hie^ical ctrcuBist&iices rcpres^ntatioii lield, even then, the Medical agaiast theni^ beiag registered Haviiig heard the leamed regard to the facts aad aUowed to make a detailed respondent no. 1 and respoudent of tlie petitioner aiid to tak^ respondents no, 3 aad 4 on Witli tlie aforesaid petition stands disposed of, Coi| staiid disposed of. Parties are entitled for [^cil of ludi^. iss iiot talciag siny action practAtioners, |ounsel for fhe parties and having of flie case, the petitiouer is raismg atl his grievaiice to |io. 1, in tura, wiU consider the ca&e appropriate aetion against the with law, aiid directions, this w?it ^sequently, I.A.No. 10208/2003 also ajccoijlaiice obser^ations cfiiq^^rj H^^f ^^S <f^^1< ^T3lf^m3RT^T certfled copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge {^i^g% Yte^ '-^