IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2476 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. KIDS CLINIC INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.1533, 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRI.ROHIT M.A., (BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADV.,) … PETITIONER AND:
1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL OFFICE AT NO.70, 2ND FLOOR, “VAIDYAKEEYA BHAVANA”
K.R.ROAD, H.B.SAMAJA ROAD CORNER, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, UDIPI GARDEN DOWN, 16 MAIN, MICO LAYOUT, NEAR – WATER TANK, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 068. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER.
3. SRI.VAIDYANATHAN VENKATARAMAN, MAJOR, S/O SRI.C.K.VENKATARAMAN, RESIDING AT NO.156, 13TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, B.T.M. 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 068.
(BY SRI. Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R2; SRI.VINAY D HOSMATH FOR SRI. D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
… RESPONDENTS SRI.SHAHBAAZ HUSSAIN, ADV., FOR R3 – ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE R-1 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN ANNEXURE – A DATED 28.07.2015 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Rajadithya Sadasivan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay D. Hosmath, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.07.2015 issued by Karnataka Medical Council to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a Managing Director of the Hospital in question and has not provided any treatment to the Respondent No.3. Therefore, the Karnataka Medical Council has no jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that notice dated 28.07.2015, in any case, will survive against Dr. Suman Singh and Dr. Uma Maheshwari.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a Managing Director of the Hospital in question and is not a Doctor, the impugned notice insofar as it pertains to the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.
6. Needless to state that the Karnataka Medical Council shall be at liberty to proceed further with the matter against Dr. Suman Singh and Dr. Uma Maheshwari.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-