The Calcutta High Court observed the following while hearing a case, Smt. Supriya Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, W.P.A. No.5340 of 2007 which was presided over by the Honourable Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya on 16th November 2022.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner claimed that she had gone to the respondent, who is an Orthopaedic surgeon for pain in her left wrist and was asked to get an X-ray done immediately.
The reports were allegedly handed over directly to the surgeon who opined that the petitioner had a fracture and needs a plaster.
To get a second opinion, the petitioner visited other medical practitioners who claimed that she had no fracture and when she came back to the respondent with the prescriptions of the said medical practitioners, he refused to see them and started shouting and abusing them as well.
Following this, he forcefully applied plaster to the left wrist and asked her to be immobilized for 6 weeks. The respondent went to visit other doctors who claimed she did not need a plaster and removed them.
Subsequently, the case was brought in front of the Penal and Ethical Cases Committee and all the documents were asked to be shared by the West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC).
After meetings were held, the committee decided not to further proceed with the same. This was challenged by the petitioner as a writ petition and was also argued that the same is not maintainable because there is an alternative remedy available under the Bengal Medical Act, 1914.
The Court held that even before getting the reasoned order of the Council, the petitioner had already moved for a writ petition and hence the action of the Council was justified. Additionally, on the order s of the High Court, the Medical Council decided to give a hearing chance to the petitioner but she never showed up and hence, an ex parte judgement was passed.
The petitioner’s contention that there was a discrepancy in the order dates does not hold true and her recounting of events of the X-ray plate being never handed to her was also proved to be a lie as the witness, who was the owner of the clinic.
The BMA provides for enough opportunities to be heard from both sides and the decision taken by the WBMC to drop the case was taken well within the four corners of the law as it would be an abuse of the law and would involve a cumbersome proceeding for every complaint. Thus the petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SAYANTANI RAKSHIT