Delhi High Court: Baseless Targeting Of Doctors Intended To Harm Public Interest

The Delhi High Court has overturned the interim removal of a radiologist’s name from the medical register after the death of a 21-year-old patient, warning that the targeting of physicians without cause is certain to harm the public interest.

Justice C. Hari Shankar emphasized that while callous negligence must be strictly dealt with because a “scalpel cannot be wielded by a shaking hand,” removing a doctor’s name from the Indian Medical Register has far-reaching familial and societal repercussions in addition to causing the “civil death” of his career.

The judge, who was handling the radiologist’s petition against a Medical Council of India (MCI) order directing the removal of his name for three months, stated that the punishment on the count of falsifying records cannot be upheld in law since the council dropped the claim of medical negligence against him and he was not implicated in any other allegations.

While it is true that behavior that doesn’t even meet the very minimum of medical standards or shows callous disregard for a patient’s wellbeing must be dealt with harshly, it is also true that a trembling hand cannot hold a scalpel. In a July 3 judgment, the court said that “blatantly attacking physicians without considering the repercussions is sure to significantly harm the public interest in the long run.

“The petitioner was properly exonerated by the MCI of the claim of medical malpractice. Despite having so decided, the MCI was unable to sanction the petitioner for falsifying documents, it said.

The lady who passed away was said to have had an abortion in May 2007 and had been found to still have some of the previous living fetus within her uterus.

A surgical treatment was conducted on her by another doctor to prevent a potentially fatal infection, with the petitioner giving the required support. However, she passed away the same day.

In its judgment, the court observed that the petitioner had never been accused of falsifying records prior to the MCI issuing the order in March 2010, and the sole claim brought against him was that he contributed to the untimely death of the lady, which was later determined to be without merit.

Additionally, it ruled that the petitioner should have been notified before drawing a negative finding and that there are no observations in the MCI ruling that identify the record that was fabricated.

“This is a really unpleasant scenario. Insofar as the doctor’s professional career is concerned, the removal of a doctor’s name from the Indian Medical Register has the characteristics of a civil death. The court said that the decision’s effects on families and society as a whole are extensive and are certain to be covered in the media.

The gravity of the offense increases when the deception involves the care of a patient, particularly when the patient is deceased. The order must be accurate and explicit with respect to the false record, the way in which it was fabricated, and the time when the fabrication occurred, it was added.

The court said that since record-falsification involves criminal intent, it is an exceedingly serious issue and cannot be reached lightly.

“Therefore, the challenged order of March 20, 2010, cannot be upheld on the basis of the law or the circumstances. It is, therefore, struck aside,” the court decided.