2014 (1) TMI 1829 - HC - Companies Law

Criminal complaint with allegations of medical negligence - MCI under the 2002 Regulations jurisdiction - Held that - It is clearly admitted by the Respondent that it has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the Petitioner hospital under the 2002 Regulations. In fact, it is stated that it has not passed any order against the Petitioner hospital. Thus, need not go into the question whether the adequate infrastructure facilities for appropriate post-operative care were infact in existence or not in the Petitioner hospital and whether the principles of natural justice had been followed or not while passing the impugned order. Suffice it to say that the observations dated 27.10.2012 made by the Ethics Committee do reflect upon the infrastructure facilities available in the Petitioner hospital and since it had no jurisdiction to go into the same, the observations were uncalled for and cannot be sustained. Since the MCI had no jurisdiction to go into the infrastructure facilities, need not also go into the aspect that in the year 2011, the facilities available in the hospital were inspected and were found to be in order. The petition therefore has to succeed. Hereby issue a writ of certiorari quashing the adverse observations passed by the MCI against the Petitioner hospital highlighted in Para 1 above.

Summary

Issues:
1. Medical negligence in post-operative care after Lower Segment Caesarian Section Procedure.
2. Jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
4. Jurisdiction of the Medical Council of India over hospitals' infrastructure.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a writ petition seeking to quash the minutes of a meeting of the Ethics Committee regarding medical negligence in post-operative care following a Lower Segment Caesarian Section Procedure. The Committee found lack of guidance and care, inadequate facilities, and negligence on the part of the doctors, leading to the patient's death. Punishments were recommended for the doctors and the hospital, highlighting deficiencies in post-operative care and infrastructure inadequacies.

2. The petition raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to pass judgment on hospital infrastructure, arguing that the MCI regulations only govern medical practitioners, not hospitals. The petitioner contended that the observations on hospital infrastructure were beyond the Committee's jurisdiction. The MCI, in its counter affidavit, acknowledged its limited jurisdiction over registered medical professionals and clarified that no order was passed against the hospital.

3. The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice, claiming they were not provided an opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed. However, the MCI countered this argument by stating that the petitioner was represented during the proceedings and had submitted documents in support of their position. The court found that the observations on hospital infrastructure exceeded the Committee's jurisdiction, and therefore, the principles of natural justice were not followed.

4. The judgment emphasized that the MCI lacked jurisdiction to make observations on hospital infrastructure under the 2002 Regulations. The court held that since the MCI had not passed any order against the hospital and had no authority over hospital facilities, the adverse observations were unwarranted. The court quashed the adverse observations made by the MCI against the hospital, citing lack of jurisdiction to assess hospital infrastructure for post-operative care.