W.P. Nos. 29090 of 2012 and 3593 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 and 2 of 2012, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2013. Case: 1. Dr. K. Nedumaran, 2. Dr. T. Ramesh Vs 1. The Chairman, Ethics Committee, Board of Governors in Super-session of the Medical Council of India and Melmaruvathur Adhi Parasakthi, [Alongwith W.P. No. 29091 of 2012, W.P. No. 29888 of 2012 and W.P. No. 29894 of 2012], 2. The Chairman, Ethics Committee, Board of Governors in Super-session of the Medical Council of India and The Registrar, Tamilnadu Medical Council. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberW.P. Nos. 29090 of 2012 and 3593 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 and 2 of 2012, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. K. Venkataramani, SC for Mr. A.S. Baalaji in W.P. Nos. 29090, 29091 and 29894 of 2012 and W.P. No. 3593 of 2013 and Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, SC for Mr. A.S. Baalaji in W.P. No. 29888 of 2012 and For Respondents: Mr. V.P. Raman for RR1 and 2 in W.P. Nos. 29090, 29091, 29888 and 29894 of 2012 and for Respondents in W.P. No. 3593...
JudgesK. Chandru, J.
IssueAdvocate Act, 1961 - Section 35; Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 10-A, 20-A, 21, 24, 27, 33; Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) - Sections 120B, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Judgement DateMarch 08, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

K. Chandru, J.

  1. Prologue:

    The medical profession is one of the oldest professions of the world and is the most humanitarian one. There is no better service than to serve the suffering, wounded and the sick. Inherent in the concept of any profession is a code of conduct, containing the basic ethics that underline the moral values that govern professional practice and is aimed at upholding its dignity. Medical ethics underpin the values at the heart of the practitioner-client relationship. In recent times, professionals are developing a tendency to forget that the self-regulation which is at the heart of their profession is a privilege and not a right and a profession obtains this privilege in return for an implicit contract with society to provide good, competent and accountable service to the public. It must always be kept in mind that a doctor's is a noble profession and the aim must be to serve humanity, otherwise this dignified profession will lose its true worth.

    [State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram reported in (2005) 7 SCC 1, para 34]

    This judgment of the Supreme Court will set a tone for the case on hand.

    These five writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, vide order dated 1.3.2013. Out of five writ petitioners, four writ petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.08.2012 issued by the Chairman of the Ethics committee of the Medical Council of India, New Delhi and the consequential order of the second respondent, i.e., the Board of Governors of the MCI functioning in the place of elected medical council, dated 27.09.2012 and seeks to set aside the same. By the aforesaid order, the petitioners' names were directed to be removed from the State Medical Register for a period ranging from 3 to 5 years.

  2. In W.P. No. 29888 of 2012, when the matter came up on 22.11.2012, status quo as on date was directed to be maintained. Subsequently, it was clarified that in the interim order all the four writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 29090, 29091, 29888 and 29894 of 2012) were mentioned, it was stated that it will maintain only in respect of W.P. No. 29888 of 2012. Thereafter, orders were passed on 30.11.2012, 17.12.2012, 08.01.2013, 31.01.2013 and 12.02.2013. It was generally stated that the earlier order granted was extended from time to time and finally by an order dated 12.02.2013, it was extended until further orders. Aggrieved by the grant of the interim order, vacate order applications were filed in M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 seeking to vacate the interim order. In all 4 writ petitions, the College in which the petitioners were allegedly employed as faculty members, i.e., Melmaruvathur Adhi Parasakthi Institute of Medical Science and Research (for short MAPIMS) was also impleaded vide order dated 22.11.2012 and 26.11.2012.

  3. When these four writ petitions were pending consideration, the 5th writ petition came to be filed in W.P. No. 3593 of 2013 by one Dr. T. Ramesh. He has come forward to challenge the order, dated 21.01.2013 passed by the MCI, wherein and by which his name was directed to be removed from the State Medical Register for a period of 5 years with an immediate effect. He is not only a faculty member in the said college, but also the Managing Director of the MAPIMS. In view of the pendency of other cases, they were all grouped together and heard.

  4. The circumstances which led to take disciplinary action against the said five doctors can be briefly stated as follows:

    Dr. Ketan Desai, who was the then President of the MCI was arrested by the CBI and a criminal case was registered against him punishable under Section 120B and 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against him was that as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the MCI, he had recommended renewal of permission for admission of third batch of students run by the MAPIMS for the academic year 2010-2011. He had granted renewal even though MAPIMS did not possess requisite infrastructure facility as required under the norms of the MCI and the Central Government. Initially, for the year 2010-11 when the second renewal of permission for admission of third batch of students of MBBS came, the MAPIMS had applied for renewal of permission. The MCI had carried out inspections on 16.02.2010 and 17.02.2010 by a team of inspectors of MCI. The team had noted several deficiencies including shortage of faculties to an extent of 42.17% and shortage of residents of 63.39%. The executive committee, upon considering the inspection report, had noted these deficiencies and decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant permission for admission of the third batch students for the academic year 2010-2011. Thereafter, it was stated by the MAPIMS that the have complied with the deficiencies found. An another inspection was carried out by the MCI on 29.03.2010 by a team of Inspectors of the MCI. In the meeting held on 05.04.2010, the members of the executive committee had decided to recommend to the Central Government to renew permission for admission of the third batch of 150 students in the MAPIMS for the academic year 2010-2011. It was on the basis of the recommendation of the MCI, the Central Government had granted approval for renewal of permission for admission. It was intimated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 23.04.2010 to the Managing Trustee of the college.

  5. The investigation by the CBI revealed that the MCI requirement requiring 262 faculty members in the college was not fulfilled and there was a shortage of eligible faculty members. The MAPIMS claimed that they have recruited faculty members over a period from 2009-2010. Several faculty members were not permanent including 32 doctors and some of them were working for one day or a few days in the college only for the purpose of presenting themselves before the inspection team of MCI on 29.03.2010 to make it appear as if they are regular faculty members. But, they were actually faculty members who were not employed in the college on regular basis contrary to the declaration form. In essence, they were working in other hospitals. While working at other hospitals, they cannot be the faculty members of the MAPIMS as required under the regulations of the MCI. The declaration forms of all these faculty members including the four writ petitioners, who were not employed in the college, contained false and misleading information in the form of an undertaking to the effect that these faculty members were full time teachers of MAPIMS and that they were not working in any other medical college or institution nor attended any inspection of the MCI from 01.08.2009 onwards till the date of signing the declaration form and that they were not practicing anywhere or carrying out any other activity. These 32 faculty members who had attended the MCI inspection on 29.03.2010, were not required to sign any attendance register or to attend the college regularly by the college authorities. They were paid salary in cash either in lumpsum or on case to case basis and not on the basis of the UGC rules, for which acknowledgment of payment of salary by cash was taken in vouchers even after the date of compliance inspection on 29.01.2010. In some cases, even after the registration of the case by the CBI, they were not shown as faculty members in the list provided to the Chartered Accountant of the trust, which is running the college for the purpose of income tax computation while filing the income tax returns. Their names also did not appear in the list provided to the panchayat for payment of professional tax and in the bank, i.e., Central Bank of India and State Bank of India, wherein salaries of faculty members were paid directly. Therefore, the CBI had opined that these 32 doctors, including 4 writ petitioners have violated the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which calls for punishment and disciplinary action. By their act, they have contributed to the strength of faculty members of the MAPIMS when the MCI had conducted inspection on 29.03.2010 and made the MCI to believe that the strength of the faculty members of the college was sufficient as per the MCI Regulations and also made the MCI to grant permission for admission of third batch of students. Therefore, the CBI had recommended to the MCI to take action in terms of the Ethics Regulations.

  6. It was also stated that they were given appointment orders by one Dr. T. Ramesh, petitioner in W.P. No. 3593 of 2013, who is also the Managing Director of the institution. The MCI upon receipt of the report had informed all petitioners separately by communication, dated 13.7.2012 that it was decided to take appropriate steps and necessary action in accordance with law. Therefore, they were asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them in accordance with the regulations, 2002. They were also asked to appear before the Ethics Committee of the MCI on 21.08.2012 along with any statement of defence and or documentary evidence in their support. In the same show cause notices, they were informed about the CBI report and necessary documents including declaration forms were enclosed for their perusal. On receipt of the said notice, the four petitioners have appeared before the committee and gave statements. They were also given a question and answer to be filled up by them, which was also duly filled up by them.

  7. The nature of allegations made against them, statements given by the petitioners and the observation of the Ethics Committee including their recommendation in respect of four writ petitions are set out hereunder:

    Dr. K. Nedumaran (W.P. No. 29090 of 2012):

    Statement submitted by CBI

    Statement of Dr. K. Nedumaran, S/o Shri V. Kaliaperumal, earlier working as Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, in Melmaruvathur Adiparasakthi Institute of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT