H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a Registered Medical Practitioner, is a consulting E. N. T. Surgeon and Anaesthesiologist. He was the Professor of Anaesthesiology at Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, and Honorary Anaesthesiologist to Government Wenlock Hospital, and Government Lady Goschen Hospital, Mangalore. It is stated that he was also a consultant for Fr. Muller's Hospital Kankanady, Mangalore. He has been running a Nursing Home under the name and style of Shri Ramakrishna Nursing Home at Mangalore as a proprietary concern since 1967. He has also been working as Anaesthesiologist since 1967. Sint. Shakunthala V. Pai was admitted to the petitioner's Nursing Home on 5-8-1981 under advise of Dr. U. K. Kini, the Surgeon. The petitioner was informed by the Surgeon that the patient was being posted for hemithyroidectomy under general anaesthesia on 6-8-1981 at 3-30 p. m. The operation was performed by the Surgeon assisted by another Doctor between 3-30 p. m. and 5-30 p. m. on 6-8-1981 and it was the petitioner who had administered anaesthesia to the patient and he acted as Anaesthesiologist throughout the duration of the operation. Unfortunately the patient did not regain full consciousness and at about 8 p. m. Dr. Kini and the petitioner decided to get the patient examined by Dr. K. R. Shetty, Neuro-Physician, in order to elicit his opinion. Suggested treatment was said to have been administered immediately thereafter. But the patient did not regain full consciousness till 6-12-1981 and, on that day, the husband of the patient took her away from the Nursing Home against alleged medical advice. Respondent-2 complained against the petitioner and Dr. Kini to the Finance Minister, Government of Karnataka, who forwarded the complaint to the Health Minister. An enquiry was ordered and after the enquiry was concluded, the impugned order came to be passed on 27-10-1983, a copy of which is Annexure-A. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has taken exception to the warning administered to him in the language expressed in the following words :-"dr. U. K. Kini, Surgeon has been exhonerated. Dr. K. P. Shenoy, Anaesthesist has been indicated for relative error of judgment and has been warned. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has sought for quashing the order under Annexure-A in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 4 ) THE main. U. K. Kini, Surgeon has been exhonerated. Dr. K. P. Shenoy, Anaesthesist has been indicated for relative error of judgment and has been warned. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has sought for quashing the order under Annexure-A in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 4 ) THE main. contention is that the order in question has been passed in contravention of S. 15 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, because, according to the petitioner, there is no finding of any misconduct and hence it was impermissible to warn the petitioner. Another contention is that the impugned order is not preceded by an enquiry as contemplated by law and it has been held in violation of natural justice. ( 5 ) IN the statement of objections, it is contended that the enquiry was held in accordance with law and that there is no violation of rules of natural justice and that the petitioner had reasonable opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Secondly, it is contended that the impugned order is supported by reasons and the warning administered to the petitioner is fully justified. ( 6 ) I cannot persuade myself to accept the contention that the enquiry is not held in. accordance with law and that rules of natural justice have been violated. Except for a mere assertion, there is nothing on record to support the petitioner in this regard. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to S. 15 (1) (a) of the Act :-"if a medical practitioner has been, after due inquiry by the Medical Council, found guilty of any misconduct, the Medical Council may - issue a letter of warning addressed to such medical practitioner. " ( 8 ) IT is seen from the impugned order that an enquiry was held by the Karnataka Medical Council composed of qualified medical Doctors hearing both the parties and recording their statements in writing. Relevant documents were also scrutinised by the Council and after lengthy discussion by all the Members of the Council at the meeting held on 22-9-1983, the Members of the Council felt that the petitioner herein should be administered a warning. The opinion was unanimous and the same was communicated by the Registrar of the Karnataka Medical Council to the petitioner. The impugned order does not contain the discussion of evidence and the findings of the Council in detail. The opinion was unanimous and the same was communicated by the Registrar of the Karnataka Medical Council to the petitioner. The impugned order does not contain the discussion of evidence and the findings of the Council in detail. It only communicates to the petitioner the warning making known to the petitioner the context of the warning so communicated. It is brought to my notice that a suit was instituted by respondent-2 and others against the petitioner and Dr. U. K. Kini in O. S. No. 195 of 1983 before the Civil Judge, Mangalore, for a judgment and decree against the defendants therein jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. After trial, the suit was decreed as prayed for against which an appeal is pending before this Court. ( 9 ) THE proceedings of the enquiry which culminated in the administering of warning to the petitioner under Annexure-A in the instant case is not produced by the petitioner before the Court. The petitioner is merely questioning the order containing the warning and not the proceedings. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that the misconduct of the petitioner has not been established, but at the same time a warning has been issued to the petitioner by the Karnataka Medical Council. The fact that an enquiry was held by the Council cannot be disputed. The fact that persons against whom enquiry was held were not absolved of the guilt is not disputed except to the extent that only Dr. U. K. Kini was exonerated but not the petitioner. The finding is that the petitioner was found to have committed an error of judgment. In the relevant portion of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the petitioner has been indicated for relative error of judgment and has been warned. ( 10 ) I am unable to accept the contention ,that misconduct has not been established or that there is no finding of any misconduct and, therefore, the warning given to the petitioner is either untenable or misconceived. I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order and the order of a competent Medical Council cannot be lightly brushed aside. I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order and the order of a competent Medical Council cannot be lightly brushed aside. ( 11 ) IN a country where for the life of the patient there appears to be scant regard and where the patients do not seem to be conscious of their rights and also where malpractise litigation against negligent Doctors is hardly in evidence, the action taken by the Medical Council commends emulation if the life and dignity of man are to be respected in our present day society. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .