Supreme court grants relief to senior paediatrician, reduces 3-month medical register removal to warning

New Delhi: Granting relief to a senior pediatrician, the Supreme Court of India recently set aside a High Court order that had restored a Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission) direction to remove the doctor's name from the Indian Medical Register for three months.

Considering the doctor's advanced age and a procedural breach in the disciplinary process, the Apex Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and reduced the punishment.

While earlier, the doctor's name was set to be removed from the Indian Medical Register for three months, the top court bench reduced the penalty to a "censure/warning".

"Accordingly, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we request the NMC to reduce the punishment imposed by the Executive Committee from removal of Dr. ***name from the Indian Medical Register for 3 months to issuance of a censure/ warning. An order to that effect may be issued by the NMC to Dr. ***," ordered the Court.

Background: 

The matter concerned a 76-year-old pediatrician and former Head of the Department at Patna Medical College (PMC), who had been accused of professional misconduct by the erstwhile MCI.

After retiring from the medical college, the doctor was appointed as Professor, Department of Paediatrics, at Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College (SSSMC), Dehradun, in January 2015. However, in April 2015, he resigned from the position and rejoined PMC on a contractual basis. On 22nd January 2015, an MCI inspection was conducted at the SSSMC, wherein the paediatrician appeared as faculty of the said institution before the Inspecting Team of the MCI.

While rejoining PMC, the doctor signed a Declaration Form for PSC, which omitted his brief stint at SSSMC within the same academic year. When MCI conducted a surprise inspection at PMC on May 5, 2015, the doctor was in Armsterdam for an international conference. Based on the Declaration Form that the doctor submitted at PMC and the institute's Principal produced before MCI; the Council issued a show-cause notice to him, alleging that the doctor had appeared for inspection at two colleges in one year.

In response, the doctor submitted a detailed reply in his letter dated 18th December 2015, accompanied by a sworn affidavit dated 19.12.2015. He denied that he had signed any declaration form in front of the Assessors on the day of inspection at the PMC and asserted that since MCI inspections are always surprise inspections, the declaration forms are customarily prepared well in advance by the institution and kept ready for production. He placed on record his passport and visa documents establishing his presence in Amsterdam on 5th May 2015. He also acknowledged that he had appeared before the MCI Inspection Team at the SSSMC on 22nd January 2015 as a faculty member of that institution.

Separately, the PMC Principal also sent a representative to the Ethics Committee, submitting a clarification and stating that the doctor did not appear in the inspection held on 05.05.2015 as he was on ExIndia leave from 4th May 2015 to 9th May 2015 to participate in ESPGHAN at Amsterdam.

Although the Ethics Committee initially did not find the doctor guilty of the primary charge due to him being abroad during the inspection, the Executive Committee of MCI directed a re-verification of whether he had disclosed his SSSMC appearance in the PMC form.

Without issuing a fresh notice to the doctor, the Ethics Committee found the doctor guilty of "serious misconduct" for withholding information. Accordingly, it directed to remove the doctor's name from the Medical Register for three months.

When the MCI verdict was challenged, a Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashed the penalty in 2017, citing a lack of mens rea. However, later, a Division bench of the High Court in 2023 restored the penalty earlier imposed on the doctor and held that the omission was significant and could not be condoned as "bona fide inadvertence".

The Division Bench upheld the power and duty of the MCI to conduct surprise inspections with a view to ensuring that standards of medical education are maintained and the minimum requirements as per the MCI guidelines are facilitated in every medical college.

Supreme Court's Observations: 

The order of the Division Bench was challenged by the doctor before the Supreme Court, which noted that initially, the charge framed in the show cause notice required the doctor to explain his conduct with respect to fake faculty declaration forms where the names of doctors appeared in more than one medical college. It was his defence—uncontroverted by the respondents—that when the inspection came to be conducted at the PMC on 5th May 2015, he was not in India, noted the top court bench.

Highlighting the procedural breach in the disciplinary process, the bench observed, "Having accepted the reply, the Executive Committee referred the matter back to the Ethics Committee, which observed that Dr. *** had not disclosed his appearance as a faculty with the SSSMC in the declaration form submitted during the inspection carried for the PMC— a charge that did not form a part of the show cause notice dated 9th December 2015."

"Once the charge originally framed against Dr. *** was successfully defended by him, the Ethics Committee (on being prodded by the Executive Committee) proceeded to hold Dr. ***guilty of an act of omission, which was at variance with the charge. This was without informing him of the same and without calling for his explanation. There has, indeed, been a breach of principles of natural justice," it further observed.

The Court referred to a coordinate bench ruling in the case of Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, where the court had held that once a delinquent employee had successfully defended a charge, the disciplinary authority, in the absence of a fresh show cause notice, cannot punish the delinquent employee on a completely different charge which was not framed. This would be a denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Referring to this judgment, the Apex Court noted at the outset,

"Thus, the Executive Committee could not have imposed the punishment without issuing a fresh show cause notice and/or without granting Dr. *** a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the new/alternative charge under consideration. We quite appreciate that the Executive Committee’s decision, to that extent, does suffer from a serious flaw."

However, despite such a flaw, the bench noted that the sight could not be lost of the fact that the doctor had failed to answer, with any degree of conviction, why and how the mis-declaration was made, which was alleged in the Executive Committee’s order dated 21st July 2016.

"Failure to explain such a brazen mis-declaration, ipso facto, would afford a ground to view such mis-declaration as misconduct. Such mis-declaration on the part of Dr. *** could not have been condoned by the Executive Committee," the bench observed at this outset.

While deciding the quantum of punishment, the court noted that during the pendency of the plea before the Single Judge, the operation of the decision of the Executive Committee was stayed. After the Single Judge's order in the doctor's favour, the Division Bench did not stay the operation of the Single Judge’s order or direct enforcement of the Executive Committee’s decision. Then, the Division Bench’s decision being adverse to him, the doctor approached the Supreme Court. On 13th October, 2023, a Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court, while issuing notice in the petition, stayed the operation of the impugned order.

Accordingly, taking note of the advanced age of the doctor and also the procedural flaw, the Apex Court bench recently reduced the punishment for the doctor and observed,

"The decision of the Executive Committee dates back to 21st July 2016. Almost a decade has passed since then. Dr. *** is now 76 years of age, having had the sword of Damocles hanging over his head since the last ten years. While it is true that there has been a lapse on his part by mis-declaration in the Declaration Form—one which he now fairly admits—in the larger scheme of things, it may not be in the interest of justice to uphold the penalty imposed by the Executive Committee. The NMC, as is its professional obligation, is duty bound to ensure that the professional repute of doctors is maintained at its highest level within its governance framework. The order we propose to pass is not to fault the process undertaken by the MCI but to ensure complete justice between the parties. Accordingly, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we request the NMC to reduce the punishment imposed by the Executive Committee from removal of Dr. ***'s name from the Indian Medical Register for 3 months to issuance of a censure/ warning. An order to that effect may be issued by the NMC to Dr. ***."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/08/pediatrician-punishment-reduced-sc-346230.pdf

Also Read: Medical fraternity raises concern over SC verdict allowing negligence claims against doctors' legal heirs