ANKURAN DUTTA vs MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12591/2019 & CM APPL. 6554/2024 Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ANKURAN DUTTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abir Phukan, Ms. Rishika Radhakrishnan, Mr. Shamik Sanyal, Advocates. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Praveen Khattar, Advocate for R- 2. Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The petition is for setting aside the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby, the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 16.06.2017 was disposed of. 2. The petitioner seems to have filed a complaint alleging medical negligence against respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Delhi Medical Council [‘DMC’]. Acting on the said complaint, vide order dated 16.06.2017, the DMC had directed that the name of respondent nos.3 and 4 be removed from Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 15:24:09 KUMAR KAURAV the State Medical Register for a period of 15 days. 3. Against the order dated 16.06.2017, the petitioner had filed an appeal before respondent no.1 seeking enhancement of the punishment. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 had also filed appeals against the said order before respondent no. 1. All three appeals were disposed of vide impugned order. 4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner’s appeal has not been dealt with on merits. According to the petitioner, the punishment awarded to respondents no. 3 and 4 is not proportionate to the gravity of their aggravated misconduct. It is also pointed out that the impugned order passed by respo