- (1.) All the three petitioners are medical practitioners against whom order of suspension of practice has been issued by the 3rd respondent, namely, the Punjab Medical Council on 15.10.2014, referring to the petitioners having been guilty of unethical practice. The impugned order refers to a notice having been issued on 5.8.2014 seeking for response from the petitioners why action shall not be taken for the unethical practice of issuing advertisement for the hospital, namely, Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital in electronic media. The order reads that the petitioners 1 to 3 in their letters have admitted to the act and apologized for the same. The order further recites that even after the response, the advertisement was being carried out in a clever way by an employee of the hospital giving a talk in a television show. The illusion is in the manner in which the advertisement has come about by a scroll running through the entire period of telecast of 10 minutes to a contact number 'Banjpan Clinic' adjoining Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital with a full address of Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital and the contact number of the employee. The impugned order directs the suspension of licence for a period of three months.
(2.) The writ petition is filed contending that there has been a flagrant violation of rules of natural justice in not affording to the petitioners any opportunity to show cause against any such action. It is the further contention that as per the relevant procedure prescribed under Part VI of the MCI regulations, an inquiry that is constituted shall give three weeks notice and the same was not done. The third contention is that there is no prohibition against advertisement by the hospital giving details of facilities available. Again the talk itself was merely information about issues of infertility and it does not attract the provision relating to advertisement. The counsel for the petitioners with 2nd petitioner himself supplementing the arguments in person would refer to Regulations 7.11 and 7.12, which read as under:- 7.11 A physician should not contribute to the lay press articles and give interview regarding diseases and treatments which may have the effect of advertising himself or soliciting practices; but is open to write to the lay press under his own name on matters of public health, hygienic living or to deliver public lectures, give talks on the radio/TC/internet chat for the same purpose and send announcement of the same to lay press. 7.12 An institution run by a physician for a particular purpose such as a maternity home, nursing home, private hospital, rehabilitation centre or any type of training institution, etc. may be advertised in the lay press, but such advertisements should not contain anything more than the name of the institution, type of patients admitted, type of training and other facilities offered and the fees. The attempt is to say that there was no advertisement by the hospital itself, but it was only a talk on public awareness regarding infertility and connected issues and, therefore, there was no breach of regulations. It is also contended that the advertisement which was complained of through the notice issued on 5th August, 2014 makes reference to the talk which was made on 1st week of October, 2014. They are two different occasions and could not had been juxtaposed to pass the order which cannot be done. According to the petitioners, the punishment accorded of suspension of practice is very severe and when criminal prosecution itself being launched, there was no warrant for imposing a punishment of suspension of practice. The last argument was truly a passionate plea by the 2nd petitioner doctor himself that interest of the patients will seriously suffer, if the practice is suspended.
(3.) The Medical Council is on caveat and to a plea by the petitioners that the notice was not issued as per the regulations, the counsel has made available to me a later copy of the notice which was issued on 22.8.2014 for which replies have been given by the petitioners admitting to the advertisement. The first argument which is made that the impugned order has been passed without following the rules of natural justice in not affording to the petitioners an opportunity to show cause against any punishment for alleged misconduct cannot be taken as correct. On the other hand, the replies given by the petitioners will themselves disclose that the misconduct attributed was clearly admitted by the petitioners No. 2 and 3. While the 1st petitioner would state that she had not in any way appeared in person in any TV Channel and the hospital bears a corporate name which was co-incidentally her name and she has not indulged in any way act of misconduct. There is truly an issue of whether she has any connection to the hospital or the advertisement.;