Authority: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22 September 2026 (pronounced) – Reserved on 29 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Dr. Jaydeep Date (Writ Petition No. 8830/2013) and Dr. Munir Sufi Mhaskar (Writ Petition No. 87/2014).
  • Respondents: Medical Council of India (MCI), Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC), and complainant Murad Hasan Mulla (respondent No. 3).
  • Background: The complainant alleged medical negligence stemming from urethral‑stricture surgeries performed by the petitioners between 2005 and 2007, including cystoscopy, bladder‑neck incision, urethral dilatation, and urethroplasty.
  • MMC order (29 Oct 2012) cleared the doctors; the complainant appealed to MCI.
  • MCI Ethics Committee, after meetings on 23 Mar 2013, 24 May 2013 and 25 May 2013, recommended removal of Dr. Date’s name for six months and Dr. Mhaskar’s name for three years; the Board of Governors approved on 6‑7 Aug 2013.
  • Impugned order dated 24 Aug 2013 was served on the doctors, who received only a notice of hearing (23 Mar 2013) and no copy of the appeal memorandum or supporting documents.
  • Interim stays were granted: Dr. Date (25 Sep 2013) and Dr. Mhaskar (24 Sep 2013, extended on 19 Jan 2015). The stays remained pending throughout the litigation.
  • Petitioners argued (i) violation of natural justice – lack of service of appeal papers and absence of a urology specialist on the Ethics Committee, (ii) the Ethics Committee’s findings were cryptic and unsupported, and (iii) the conclusions contradicted settled Supreme Court law on medical negligence (Jacob Mathew, Bolam test, Martin F. D’souza, etc.).
  • Respondent counsel contended that consent for specific procedures was lacking, that the doctors performed elective surgery without requisite urological expertise, and that procedural irregularities did not merit setting aside the order.
  • The court noted that the National Medical Commission Act 2019 repealed the Indian Medical Council Act 1956; under Section 30, only aggrieved medical practitioners may appeal State Medical Council orders, not complainants. Section 60 was discussed but deemed inapplicable to remand the matter.
  • The court examined extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing that (a) an error of judgment or choice of reasonable treatment does not constitute negligence, (b) the Bolam test requires the practitioner to exercise ordinary skill, and (c) procedural fairness is essential when disciplinary bodies render adverse findings.
  • The court found that the Ethics Committee failed to provide reasons, held meetings without the petitioners’ knowledge (24 May 2013 & 25 May 2013), and lacked a urology specialist, thereby violating natural justice.
  • Applying the Supreme Court standards, the court concluded that the adverse findings of “gross professional misconduct” were unsustainable for both doctors.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned MCI order dated 24 Aug 2013 is quashed and set aside.
  • The rule granting interim relief is made absolute.
  • All pending civil applications and notices of motion in the matter stand disposed of.

Topics: Medical Negligence, Regulatory Discipline, Natural Justice