TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes MCI's jurisdiction over hospital infrastructure in medical negligence case</h1> <h3>MAX HOSPITAL, PITAMPURA Versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA</h3> MAX HOSPITAL, PITAMPURA Versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA - TMI Issues:1. Medical negligence in post-operative care after Lower Segment Caesarian Section Procedure.2. Jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India.3. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.4. Jurisdiction of the Medical Council of India over hospitals' infrastructure.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns a writ petition seeking to quash the minutes of a meeting of the Ethics Committee regarding medical negligence in post-operative care following a Lower Segment Caesarian Section Procedure. The Committee found lack of guidance and care, inadequate facilities, and negligence on the part of the doctors, leading to the patient's death. Punishments were recommended for the doctors and the hospital, highlighting deficiencies in post-operative care and infrastructure inadequacies.2. The petition raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to pass judgment on hospital infrastructure, arguing that the MCI regulations only govern medical practitioners, not hospitals. The petitioner contended that the observations on hospital infrastructure were beyond the Committee's jurisdiction. The MCI, in its counter affidavit, acknowledged its limited jurisdiction over registered medical professionals and clarified that no order was passed against the hospital.3. The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice, claiming they were not provided an opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed. However, the MCI countered this argument by stating that the petitioner was represented during the proceedings and had submitted documents in support of their position. The court found that the observations on hospital infrastructure exceeded the Committee's jurisdiction, and therefore, the principles of natural justice were not followed.4. The judgment emphasized that the MCI lacked jurisdiction to make observations on hospital infrastructure under the 2002 Regulations. The court held that since the MCI had not passed any order against the hospital and had no authority over hospital facilities, the adverse observations were unwarranted. The court quashed the adverse observations made by the MCI against the hospital, citing lack of jurisdiction to assess hospital infrastructure for post-operative care.
TaxTMI 