SHIVKANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. -
(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to decide complaint dated 08.01.2018 within a period of six months in compliance of Rule 8.4 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 2002'). The petitioner has also prayed to suspend the license of the private respondent No. 3 with immediate effect till the complaint of the petitioner is not decided.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted complaint of violation of Medical Council of India Regulations by a medical practitioner and inspite of such complaint being filed in January 2018, the respondents are not deciding the complaint. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had approached different Authorities including the Office of Prime Minister of India and inspite of letter written by Office of the PMO, the Authorities have failed to discharge their obligations of deciding the complaint within time bound manner.
(3.) Counsel further submitted that the Medical Council of India has issued directions to the different Authorities whereby the Doctors are required to follow the Regulations of 2002 as amended in the year 2016. Counsel submitted that there is violation of the said Regulations as the private respondents had violated by prescribing drugs which did not have generic names. Counsel submitted that the respondents-Authorities, have slept over the matter for no reason and as such the petitioner who is an old man of 77 years, is deprived to get justice at the hand of the respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.