High Court: A doctor-wife filed a petition, challenging the Karnataka Medical Council’s denial of her request to form an expert committee to examine her husband, a physician, who had been suspected of having a porencephalic cyst (missing brain).
A one-judge panel of Justice M Nagaprasanna denied the plea filed by the divorced wife. It did, however, make clear that, should the necessity arise, the matter might be maintained open and brought up again later.
The petitioner claimed that on June 22, 2004, her spouse was diagnosed with a porencephalic cyst, which is a brain tumor. The pair wed on June 18, 1998. After that, the petitioner and the second respondent’s relationship broke down, and they filed for a divorce in family court, which was still in progress.
The petitioner filed a complaint against her spouse with the Medical Council while those procedures were pending. The petitioner’s application was denied by the Council on May 21, 2022. In response, the petitioner went to the High Court, which overturned the Council’s decision and returned the case to the Council.
The petitioner presented three petitions to the Council: (i) to set up an Expert Committee to investigate the husband; (ii) to have the Assessor recuse himself from the proceedings; and
(iii) to have the Advocate listed as the new one. She went to court when the Council denied all three of her applications.
The argument was made that the spouse needed to be evaluated by a Committee of Experts from NIMHANS or AIIMS since none of the Council members has the required knowledge to make a decision on the complex matter involving the second respondent. It was so declared that the application was submitted for reference or to request the assistance of an Expert Committee, and that the application’s denial was incorrect on its face.
Furthermore, it was argued that the Assessor lacks the authority to engage in the proceedings due to a lack of authority under the Rules. It was said that since he is a retired district judge and cannot resolve the disagreement, he should be excused from the proceedings.
The Medical Council refuted the argument, arguing that a quorum is required by law to undertake proceedings and that this is what is done. It was stated that the learned counsel believed that the petitioner’s imagination was the source of all other allegations.
The spouse said that the petitioner’s case as a whole is that she was diagnosed with the aforementioned issue in 2004, but she did not file a complaint until 2016, the year when the petitioner and the second respondent’s marital disagreement surfaced.
It was said that the spouse is a well-known nephrologist who sees around 100 patients every day; to yet, none of the patients have complained of any issues to the fora. It was therefore contended that by drawing the Council into the issue, a pure marital quarrel is projected.
High Court Findings:
Referencing Section 18 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, the court addressed the petitioner’s application for a direction to recuse retired Judge Basavaraj Sappannavar from the case on the grounds that he had previously decided the dispute.The judge said, “The Advocate appointed is only as an Assessor and not an adjudicating authority in terms of Section 18.” His recusal from the proceedings is therefore without dispute. There is nothing wrong with the Council’s reasoning for rejecting the application.
When the husband asked to have the matter referred to a committee composed of neurologists or neurosurgeons, such as NIMHANS or AIIMS, the court responded, “The application is preferred on the score that the present inquiry being conducted by the Committee is not proceeding in the right direction.”. The legal process is still ongoing. Now that the petitioner’s main examination has concluded, the cross-examination is underway.
The next sentence said, “According to the petitioner, the alleged problem first appeared yesterday. The petitioner’s experienced counsel is depending on the PET scan from 2004. At least one complaint from a patient the husband and second respondent treated ought to have surfaced after 20 years given the claimed husband’s issue. The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney has acknowledged that during the husband’s 26-year career, no patient has filed a complaint. Thus, it would not be necessary at this time to send the husband’s case to a committee of neurosurgeons per the petitioner’s request.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed by the court.
