Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 22 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Dr. Jaydeep Date and Dr. Munir Sufi Mhaskar; Respondents – Medical Council of India (MCI), Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC); Respondent No.3 – complainant Murad Hasan Mulla.
  • Background: Murad Hasan Mulla filed a medical‑negligence complaint before MMC. MMC on 29 Oct 2012 exonerated the doctors. MCI’s Ethics Committee entertained an appeal, held hearings on 23 Mar 2013, 24 May 2013 and 25 May 2013, and on 6‑7 Aug 2013 approved a recommendation to remove Dr. Date from the Indian/State Medical Register for six months and Dr. Mhaskar for three years (impugned order dated 24 Aug 2013).
  • Petitioners filed Writ Petition 8830/2013 (Dr. Date) and Writ Petition 87/2014 (Dr. Mhaskar). Interim stays were granted in 2013‑2015. The petitions raised two principal grounds: (i) violation of natural justice – petitioners received only a notice of the 23 Mar 2013 hearing and were never served the appeal memorandum or accompanying documents; the Ethics Committee’s meetings on 24 May 2013 and 25 May 2013 were held without the petitioners’ knowledge; no urology specialist sat on the Committee; (ii) substantive law – the findings of “gross professional misconduct” and “medical negligence” conflict with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence (Bolam test, Jacob Mathew, Martin F. D’souza, etc.). The petitioners also argued that the procedures performed (cystoscopy, bladder‑neck incision, urethral dilatation, buccal‑mucosa onlay urethroplasty) were within the training of a general surgeon holding an MS (General Surgery) and were accepted practice.
  • Respondent‑complainant contended that consent was limited to stone removal, that the doctors performed unauthorized surgery, and that procedural violations did not cause prejudice. Respondents further argued that under the National Medical Commission Act 2019 the remedy of appeal lies only with aggrieved practitioners, not the complainant, limiting any remand.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petitioners were denied a fair hearing: they were not served the appeal documents, the Ethics Committee met behind their backs on 24‑25 May 2013, and the Committee lacked a urology specialist, thereby breaching natural justice.
  • Applying the Supreme Court’s medical‑negligence standards, the Court concluded that the adverse findings were unsupported; the procedures were within the petitioners’ qualifications and accepted medical practice, and the choice of treatment does not, per Jacob Mathew and related cases, constitute negligence.
  • Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24 August 2013 passed by the MCI is quashed and set aside. The rule in the writ petitions is made absolute, and all pending civil applications and notices of motion are disposed of.

Topics: Medical negligence; Natural justice; Regulatory discipline