Only NMC has the Power to punish doctors for misconduct, not even Courts: SC
New Delhi: Holding that a doctor's license cannot be suspended as a penalty in contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court bench on Friday observed that the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rests exclusively with the National Medical Commission.
"A medical practitioner guilty of contempt of Court may also be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend on the gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person in question. They are, however, offences separate and distinct from each other. The former is regulated by the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019," clarified the Apex Court bench.
The top court bench was considering a plea challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the orders passed by the Single Judge last year in contempt proceedings and suspended the licence of the petitioner doctor to practice medicine.
Further with the order dated 14th July 2022, while extending the period of suspension till 19th August 2022, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why such suspension be not affected for a period of two years.
The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated as he unauthorizedly constructed a structure which was in deviation with the plans sanctioned by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation. Numerous complaints were filed against such unauthorised construction. In respect of this issue, the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, West Bengal passed orders in 2020 and asked Siliguri Municipal Corporation to take necessary steps to aid the petitioner in undertaking self demolition of the unauthorised construction and, in the event of his failure to do so, directed that the SMC itself undertakes such steps to do so.
Following this, a contempt plea was filed against the petitioner doctor and in this regard, the license of the doctor, to practice medicine, was suspended.
Taking note of the issue, the Supreme Court bench was considering the question “Whether the suspension of the Petitioner’s license to practice medicine is alien to the nature and types of punishment and penalties specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?"
While considering the matter, the Supreme Court bench noted that the grant, regulation and suspension of the licence to practice medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. A statutory body namely the National Medical Commission looks after the issues including maintenance of a medical register for India and enforces high ethical standards in regard of all aspects of medical services.
At this outset, the Court observed,
"A perusal of the provisions of this Act as well as the now repealed, Medical Council Act, 1956 shows that the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rest exclusively with the body envisaged under this Act. The Act itself provides for an exhaustive, complete mechanism to revoke the licence of a registered practitioner for professional misconduct. The same may be done after holding an inquiry and complying with the principles of audi alterum partem."
Referring to the question as to whether the license of a registered medical practitioner could be revoked under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the top court bench relied upon several previous judgments passed by the Court and noted,
"The Court has time and again asserted that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majority of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously."
Further pointing out that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act only envisages fine and simple imprisonment as punishment for contempt, the Apex court bench set aside the order of the division bench and the orders of the single bench.
"A reading of subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act shows that the punishment prescribed therein is simple imprisonment, not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs.2,000/SubSection (2) reads “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” this implies that save and except the punishment provided in subSection (1) no other punishment can be prescribed to a person guilty of committing contempt of Court," noted the bench.
'In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Act and, therefore, unsustainable. The Court, in awarding such punishment showed complete disregard for the statutory text of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which is abundantly clear in respect of the punishment that can be imposed thereunder," it further observed.
Setting aside the order suspending the licence of the petitioner doctor to practice medicine, the bench revived his licence to practice.
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-suspension-of-licence-215354.pdf
