Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 483 (KAR)

N. K. ANUPAMA v. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL

2005-07-26

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2005
K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the wife of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has filed a divorce petition against the 3rd respondent in M. C. No. 1310/ 2002, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional family Court at Bangalore. She has also filed a suit for defamation in O. S. No. 75/2003. ( 2 ) IT appears, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were asked to appear before the Conciliator for re-conciliation. The efforts made by the Conciliator to conciliate the matter failed. The 3rd respondent had filed a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council on 11. 12. 2002 stating that the petitioner during the course of reconciliation had defamed the 3rd respondent contending that the 3rd respondent was a pshychiatric patient which amounts to infamous professional conduct and therefore, requested the Karnataka Medical Council to initiate action against the petitioner as per the Karnataka Medical Council Act. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to Annexure-A1 the Karnataka Medical Council has issued a notice to the petitioner, calling upon her to show cause why a case should not be registered against her. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has sent a reply denying the allegations as per Annexure-B dated 13. 3. 2003 stating that she has not called the 3rd respondent as a pshychiatric patient and she never made defamatory allegations before the Conciliator. She also requested the Registrar of Karnataka medical Council to verify from the records of the Councilor of the Family Court whether the petitioner had used such words against the 3rd respondent. The Karnataka Medical Council after considering Annexure-B has framed a charge as per Annexure-C and called upon the petitioner to appear before the Committee for evidence as per Annexure-C dated 3. 12. 2003. This order is called in question in this writ petition. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Conciliators of the Family Court contend that the petitioner never called respondent No. 3 as a pshychiatric patient. According to her, she never made any defamatory statement before the Conciliator against the 3rd respondent. She has also requested the Karnataka Medical Council to verify the records from the Conciliator. ( 7 ) A notice also is put up as per Annexure-Al by the Medical Council calling upon Dr. According to her, she never made any defamatory statement before the Conciliator against the 3rd respondent. She has also requested the Karnataka Medical Council to verify the records from the Conciliator. ( 7 ) A notice also is put up as per Annexure-Al by the Medical Council calling upon Dr. Shama rao to provide a copy of the Family Court proceedings dated 5. 10. 2002. Looking into the endorsement at Annexure-Al and the reply of the petitioner as per Annexure-B, it is clear that the petitioner has taken a stand of denial regarding the allegations made against the 3rd respondent. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contends that there are no records maintained by the Conciliator of the Family Court to show that 5. 10. 2002 the petitioner called the 3rd respondent as a psychiatric patient making defamatory allegations. Even the 3rd respondent's Counsel fairly submits that no such records are available with the Conciliator. When the petitioner is denying the allegations made by her against the 3rd respondent, there was no basis for the Karnataka Medical Council to frame a charge against the petitioner as infamous act. ( 9 ) EVEN if the case of the 3rd respondent is admitted for the sake of arguments, during the course of reconciliation before the Family Court if some allegation is against the husband or same allegation is made by the husband against the wife, the same cannot be construed as professional misconduct so as to entitle the Karnataka Medical Council to frame a charge against the petitioner, calling it as infamous act and proceed against the party concerned. The opinion of this court is that even if the petitioner had used such words, the same cannot be termed as professional misconduct. Moreover, the petitioner had denied the allegations made by the 3rd respondent. There was no material for the Karnataka Medical Council to register a case and proceed against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Karnataka Medical Council Act. Therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-C dated 3. 12. 2003 passed by the karnataka Medical Council is hereby quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.