Doctors Suspended for Medical Negligence After Choosing Particular Treatment Procedures; Bombay High Court Quashes MCI Order, Says Recognised Treatment Choice Is Not Negligence
Medical Council Suspends Doctors for Six Months and Three Years; Bombay High Court Quashes Punishment, Finds Proceedings Violated Natural Justice
Facts
The proceedings arose from two writ petitions filed by Dr. Jaydeep Arun Date and Dr. Munir Sufi Mhaskar challenging an order of the Medical Council of India (“MCI”) dated 24 August 2013. The MCI had directed removal of Dr. Date’s name from the medical register for six months and Dr. Mhaskar’s registration for three years.
The complainant, Murad Hasan Mulla, had a longstanding problem involving narrowing of the urinary tract and persistent difficulty in urination. He had consulted several doctors before receiving treatment from the petitioners.
Dr. Mhaskar treated the complainant in 2005 for a ureteric stone and urinary obstruction. During the procedure, he detected bladder-neck obstruction, performed a bladder-neck incision and subsequently treated recurring urinary difficulties and urethral stricture.
Dr. Date subsequently treated the complainant from 2006 onwards. He initially used a midline scrotal skin flap to enlarge the blocked urinary passage. When the urethral narrowing recurred, he performed a buccal mucosa dorsal onlay urethroplasty in October 2007.
The complainant approached the Maharashtra Medical Council (“MMC”) alleging medical negligence. On 29 October 2012, the MMC exonerated both doctors, finding that the complainant suffered from a chronic condition, appropriate treatment had been administered and no violation of medical ethics was established.
The complainant appealed to the MCI. The MCI reversed the MMC and held both doctors guilty of gross professional misconduct/medical negligence. Dr. Mhaskar was punished with removal from the register for three years and Dr. Date for six months.
Issues
The principal questions before the Bombay High Court were:
- Whether the MCI proceedings violated principles of natural justice by failing to supply the appeal and supporting documents and by conducting subsequent deliberations without the doctors.
- Whether an Ethics Committee dealing with specialised allegations concerning urological procedures could properly adjudicate the matter without a urologist on the Committee.
- Whether Dr. Mhaskar lacked the qualification or competence to perform the procedures undertaken by him.
- Whether Dr. Date could be held medically negligent merely because he selected one recognised surgical procedure in preference to another.
- Whether the MCI’s cryptic reversal of the MMC’s exoneration satisfied the legal standards governing disciplinary findings of medical negligence.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The doctors argued that they received only notice of the MCI hearing and were never supplied the complainant’s memorandum of appeal or documents. They were heard on 23 March 2013, but the Ethics Committee subsequently met on 24 and 25 May 2013 without giving them notice.
Dr. Date further argued that the Ethics Committee did not contain even one specialist in urology, despite deciding highly technical questions concerning treatment of urethral strictures.
Dr. Mhaskar maintained that as an MS (General Surgery), he had received training in urological procedures including cystoscopy and urethral dilatation. He relied upon his medical curriculum, training records and material showing that general surgeons treated urinary stones, bladder-neck obstruction and urethral strictures.
Dr. Date relied upon Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and other Supreme Court authorities to contend that choosing one recognised method of treatment over another cannot, without more, constitute medical negligence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant contended that Dr. Mhaskar had consent only for removal of the ureteric stone and lacked written informed consent to perform the additional bladder-neck incision. Reliance was placed on Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda.
As regards Dr. Date, it was argued that he negligently chose a scrotal-skin procedure first and subsequently resorted to a mucosal graft, even though the latter ought to have been the first choice.
The complainant also argued that the doctors had received sufficient opportunity before the MCI and had failed to establish actual prejudice from non-supply of the appeal documents.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court applied the settled principles of medical negligence flowing principally from Jacob Mathew and the Bolam test.
The relevant standard is not whether another doctor would have adopted a different or better treatment. A medical professional is required to possess and exercise the reasonable skill and competence of an ordinarily competent practitioner.
The law does not demand the highest possible degree of expertise.
Equally important, a mere error of judgment, an unsuccessful outcome or selection of one reasonable and recognised treatment over another does not by itself amount to medical negligence.
Natural Justice Was Violated
The Court found that the doctors’ allegation that they were never supplied copies of the complainant’s appeal and accompanying documents was not denied. The MCI produced no material showing service.
The Court held that this handicapped the doctors in effectively defending themselves.
More significantly, not a single doctor on the Ethics Committee was a urologist. Given that the allegations required evaluation of specialised urological procedures, the Court considered this a significant deficiency and held that at least one member ought to have possessed expertise in urology.
The Court also found that while the doctors were notified about the hearing of 23 March 2013, subsequent Ethics Committee meetings on 24 and 25 May 2013 were held behind their backs. This constituted a further violation of natural justice.
MCI’s Order Was Cryptic
The MCI had reversed the reasoned exoneration granted by the MMC and imposed severe professional sanctions.
Yet its order merely recorded conclusions without explaining why the doctors’ treatment constituted negligence.
The High Court held that although an Ethics Committee need not write a judgment like a court or tribunal, it must at least provide reasons—particularly when reversing a favourable decision and imposing removal from the medical register.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively upon Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, reiterating the Bolam standard: negligence is established where a professional lacks the skill professed or fails to exercise that skill with reasonable competence.
Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1 reinforced that a doctor is not negligent simply because treatment fails, an error of judgment occurs, or another reasonable course could have been chosen.
In Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, (2010) 3 SCC 480, the Supreme Court specifically recognised that a doctor is not negligent merely because another professional disagrees with the conclusion or would have adopted a different course.
The Court distinguished Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, (2008) 2 SCC 1. That case involved surgery extending beyond the patient’s consent, including removal of the uterus. The High Court held that its factual circumstances were materially different from the procedures involved here.
Court’s Reasoning
Dr. Mhaskar
The record showed that urology formed part of Dr. Mhaskar’s MS General Surgery curriculum and included training in diagnostic cystoscopy and urethral dilatation.
The Court found sufficient material establishing that the procedures undertaken were within his qualification, training and skill set.
It further held that the bladder-neck incision undertaken after detecting obstruction during cystoscopy represented a professional decision made for the patient’s benefit. The Court rejected the contention that he was required to stop the procedure, wait for the patient to recover from anaesthesia and obtain fresh consent before proceeding.
The recurrence of the patient’s urethral stricture also could not establish negligence because the material demonstrated that the condition itself had a high rate of recurrence.
Accordingly, the finding of medical negligence against Dr. Mhaskar was unsustainable.
Dr. Date
The allegation against Dr. Date essentially concerned his decision to use scrotal skin to bypass the urethral stricture before subsequently using a mucosal graft.
The crucial fact was that the first procedure was itself a recognised surgical procedure.
The competing medical literature differed principally on whether it should be the preferred or last option. That disagreement could not transform a recognised treatment into negligence.
The Court held that a doctor cannot be found negligent merely because he chooses one recognised course of treatment over another, provided he acts with reasonable skill and competence.
Thus, the MCI’s reasoning against Dr. Date was contrary to the settled Supreme Court principles governing medical negligence.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from serious procedural irregularities and that the MCI’s cryptic findings were also contrary to settled medical-negligence jurisprudence.
The Court therefore allowed both writ petitions and quashed the MCI order dated 24 August 2013 in its entirety. All pending civil applications and notices of motion were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case: Dr. Jaydeep Arun Date v. Medical Council of India & Ors. with Dr. Munir Sufi Mhaskar v. Medical Council of India & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court
Case Nos.: Writ Petition No. 8830 of 2013 & Writ Petition No. 87 of 2014
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:20782-DB
Coram: Justice Manish Pitale & Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Reserved: 29 July 2026
Pronounced: 22 September 2026
Result: Petitions allowed; MCI’s medical-negligence findings and disciplinary punishments quashed and set aside.
