IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27421 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANITHA JAYADEVAN, W/O.N.JAYADEVAN, `ANUGRAHA', P.O.MEZHATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 534. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCILS, RED CROSS ROAD, NEAR OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN-695 035. 2. DR.K.K.GOPINATHAN, EDAPPAL HOSPITALS (P) LTD., P.O.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 576. 3. EDAPPAL HOSPITALS (P) LTD., P.O.EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHITRA GOPINATHAN, PIN-679 576. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC FOR R1 SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2,R3 SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R2,R3 SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R2R3 SRI.M.R.ANISON FOR R2,R3 SRI.T.R.RAJESH FOR R2,R3 SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI FOR R2,R3 SMT.T.B.REMANI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.(C).NO.27421 OF 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: A COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETTER DATED 15/3/2003. P2: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/4/2003 BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5/4/2003 SENT BY the 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. P4: A COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 19/9/2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: A COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 3/11/2003 TO EXT.P4 NOTICE. P6: A COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 20/1/2004 IN O.S.NO.12/2004. P7: A COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 21/5/2004 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.12/04. P8: A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU S.SIRI JAGAN, J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27421 of 2006, ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Alleging acts of misconduct on the part of the second respondent, who is a medical practitioner, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 complaint dated 4/7/2005 before first respondent for initiating action under the Indian Medical Council {Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics} Regulations, 2002. According to the petitioner, Regulation No.8.2 of the said Regulation mandates that the appropriate Medical Council shall hold an enquiry on receipt of a complaint with regard to the professional misconduct of a Physician after giving the medical practitioner an opportunity to be heard and to award such punishment as deemed necessary if it is found that the medical practitioner is guilty of committing professional W.P.(C) No.27421 of 2006 2 misconduct. It is further submitted that Regulation 8.4 mandates that a decision on a complaint against the delinquent Physician shall be taken within a time limit of 6 months. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Regulation 8.5 mandates that during the pendency of the complaint, the appropriate council may restrain the Physician from performing the procedure or practice which is under scrutiny. Petitioner's grievance is that the first respondent has not taken any effective steps to enquire into Ext.P8 complaint. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1st respondent to enquire into Exhibit P8 complaint filed by the petitioner under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Rules, the Indian Medical Council {Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics} Regulations, 2002 within a time limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court.” W.P.(C) No.27421 of 2006 3 2. I have heard the counsel for the first respondent and also the counsel for respondents 2 and 3. When a complaint under the Regulations is received, the first respondent has a duty to pass orders on the same expeditiously. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to first respondent to consider Ext.P8 complaint and pass orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE su