1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2001 Ms.Ins Laljibhai Malhotra ] Adult, of Ahmedabad ] Indian Inhabitant, residing at ] C/o.Ishwar Malhotra, Proprietor ] of Hanzer Cinema, Near Meter Gauge ] Railway Station, Saraspur ] Ahmedabad-300 018 ] Petitioner. Versus 1. The Maharashtra Medical Council ] a statutory body having their ] office at Hotel Regal Palace ] Building, 3rd Floor, Opp. Roxy ] Cinema, Opera House, Charni Road ] Mama Parmanand Marg,Mumbai-400004 ] ] 2. Dr.Ashok Kripalani ] (Nephrologist) ] ] 3. Dr.Mrs.Pratima Prasad ] (Gynaecologist) ] ] 4. Dr.S Gupta ] (Anaesthetist) ] ] 5. Dr.Singhania ] (I.C.U.Incharge) ] ] 6. Dr.Mrs.Jahagirdar ] (Gynaecologist) ] ] 7. Dr.Such Deva ] Medical Director) ] ] All at Bombay Hospital ] New Marine Lines, Bombay ].. Respondents 2 Mr. Y R Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S B Jaysinghani, Senior Counsel, i/by Revati Mohaite-Dere for the Respondent No.2. Mr. A S Doctor, i/by M/s.Kanga & Co. for the Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 1 st July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : PER P.B.MAJMUDAR J. 1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the decision taken by the Respondents in dropping the inquiry against the Medical Practitioners of the Bombay Hospital, which was initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the Petitioner, should be quashed and set aside as the said decision has been taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 3 2. The sister of the Petitioner died in the Bombay Hospital, Mumbai on account of the illness she was afflicted with. She was admitted in the said hospital and after prolonged treatment of 15 days she died on 24th August 1989. The Petitioner was of the view that her sister died because of the medical negligence and, therefore, she made a complaint before the Maharashtra Medical Council. The Maharashtra Medical Council, by the impugned order, came to a conclusion that the concerned doctors had given appropriate treatment and there was no negligence on their part and they have managed the case to the best of their ability. The said order has been impugned by the Petitioner in this Petition. 3. On June 23, 2009, this Court passed the following order :- The grievance in this petition is in connection with dropping inquiry against eight doctors of the Bombay Hospital. According to the petitioner, his sister died because of medical negligence and therefore, 4 inquiry is required to be held by the Medical Council. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 8 has pointed out that this very petitioner has taken out proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that there was no medical negligence on the part of the doctors. The said order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. He further states that the Medical Council had already held inquiry against the concerned doctors and it was found that the concerned doctors were not found negligent by the medical council. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be given some time to go through the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as National Consumer Disputes Redereall Commission and would like to contract his client in this 5 behalf. In view of the same, stand over to 01-07-2009 for orders. 4. Today, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Mishra states that he has not been able to contact his client even though he has written a letter to his client. He has not received any instructions as regards whether the Petitioner had approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and as to whether her case was decided by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that under the Regulations framed by the Maharashtra Medical Council, the Petitioner, i.e. the original complainant, was required to be heard, however, the complaint was disposed of by a cryptic order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and, therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the Maharashtra Medical Council for passing appropriate orders after hearing the Petitioner. 5. The learned senior counsel Shri Jaysinghani appearing for the concerned doctors submitted that 6 the Petitioner, who is the sister of the deceased, had preferred a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Delhi wherein she had claimed compensation of more than Rs.One crore. By a detailed order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that there was no negligence on the part of the concerned doctors and that they tried their best to save the patient s life and the required treatment was administered to the deceased. Aggrieved by the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the Petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court is a reported judgment. It is in the case of INS. Malhotra (Ms) v/s. Dr. A Kriplani and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 705. The Supreme Court has considered the aspect of the medical negligence and, on facts, held that, all the doctors who treated the patient were skilled and duly qualified specialists in their respective fields and tried their best to save the patient s life and performed their professional duties as a team. It is also held by the Supreme Court that no case of negligence or deficiency in 7 service was made out. By the said judgment, the Supreme Court has confirmed the findings as regards there being no negligence on the part of the Doctors given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By our aforesaid order dated 23rd June 2009, we had given time to the learned counsel for the Petitioner to go through the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. But it seems that the learned counsel for the Petitioner in spite of the said judgments, made submissions to the contrary. The fact remains that the grievance of the Petitioner in this behalf has been considered up to the Supreme Court and, the finding given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors was also confirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of the same, even if at the relevant time when the Petitioner filed this Petition, the Petitioner might have some grievance about not being given a hearing by the respondents, in the light of the aforesaid developments, wherein ultimately the finding of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has 8 been upheld by the Supreme Court, we do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that we should ignore the aforesaid judgments and remand the matter back to the Maharashtra Medical Council as the impugned order was passed without giving hearing to the Petitioner. 6. In the light of the said judgments referred to above, the said contention of the Petitioner is required to be ignored altogether. However, the learned counsel for the Maharashtra Medical Council Shri Jamdar submitted that various letters were written to the Petitioner to remain present on the date of hearing. In fact she had engaged an advocate but thereafter it appears she discharged the said advocate and never made any attempt to appear personally and, it is only after waiting for sufficient time, that ultimately the impugned order was passed by the Maharashtra Medical Council and, therefore, it is the contention of the Respondent No. 1 that even though opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner, she did not avail of the same. 9 7. In view of what is stated above and particularly, when the grievance of the Petitioner has been considered up to the Supreme Court on merits, the attempt on the part of the learned counsel for Petitioner to pursue these proceedings, in our view, is not proper. 8. We find some substance in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Doctors that the Petitioner, who is the sister of the deceased, is interested only in getting some monetary benefits as she claimed compensation of more than Rs.One crore before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In our view, the approach of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, of arguing contrary to the judgments of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Supreme Court, leads to a suspicion that the Petitioner is interested in only monetary benefits. In order to see that such litigation is not pursued or if pursued, the Court s time may not be consumed in hearing frivolous matters, whilst dismissing the above Petition, we impose costs of Rs.10,000/- on the 10 Petitioner. The costs to be paid to the Maharashtra Medical Council within two weeks from date. Subject to the above, this Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Sd/- sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]