Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated May 23, 2013 passed by the first respondent in ENQ.No.29/12 vide Annexure-C and quash the order dated June 27, 2013, passed by the first respondent in ENQ. No.29/12 vide Annexure-J and to expunge the recording the depositions of the petitioners in the proceedings of May 23, 2013 as recorded by the first respondent, in ENQ.No.29/12, vide Annexure-C.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was married to Smt. Rani, who is said to have been a patient of the second respondent, a Gynaecologist. It is alleged that on account of negligence on the part of the said respondent in performing a Laparoscopic procedure on Smt Rani, she is said to have died after much suffering, on 28.7.2013. On a complaint by the petitioner before the jurisdictional police, apart from initiating criminal proceedings again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR2263; 2001(1)KarLJ492
ORDER1. Though these petitions are posted for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners in these petitions are presently working as lady Medical Officers in the 5th respondent-Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation')- In these petitions, they have prayed for striking down Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to Postgraduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) Courses Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), as unconstitutional; or in the alternative to strike down the words 'Medical' and 'under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961' in the said rule, as unconstitutional.3. Sri Rajeshwara, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly submitted that the petitioners are working in the 5th respondent-Corporation, which is also a Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the enquiry proceedings dated 5-8-2010 initiated by the 1st Respondent/Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore (The Notice is produced and marked as Annexure-A).) 1. The case of the first petitioner is that he has obtained a Degree in M.B.B.S. and M.S., General Surgery and is presently pursuing his DNB (Surgical Gastro Enterology) Course at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. That he is a registered Medical Practitioner enrolled in terms of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the “State Act”). 2. The second petitioner is also a Doctor specialized in Surgical Gastroenterology and has obtained M.B.B.S., and a Post Graduation in Surgery and registered as a Medical Practitioner in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”). 3. The 3rd petitioner is the Head of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1991Kant271; 1990(3)KarLJ349
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a Registered Medical Practitioner, is a consulting E.N.T. Surgeon and Anesthesiologist. He was the Professor of Anaesthesiology at Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, and Honorary Anesthesiologist 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 Anesthesiologist since 1967. Smt. 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 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant390; ILR2004KAR3140
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Karnataka Rural Homeopathic Medical Practitioners' Association, Gokak, practicing Homeopathic system of Medicine at Hole Alur. According to him, he has vast experience in Homeopathic system of medicine and that he has been taking special care for the poor patients satisfying all their medical needs. It is his further case that the Homeopathic Medical Practitioners in Karnataka and Karnataka Rural Homeopathic Medical Practitioners' Association, Gokak, have been urging the Government of Karnataka to open Registration for the benefit of the un-registered Homeopathic Medical Practitioners, to get themselves registered in accordance with the provisions of the Homoeopathic Medical Practitioners' Act. Though several representations were filed, the State has not heeded to their request. The Registrar of Karnataka Ayurvedic & Unani Practitioners Board, issued a notice as per Annexure-D calling upon the petitioner to appear b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash/set aside the order dated 27.10.2012 passed by Respondent no.1, in striking of the name of the petitioner from the Indian Medical Register Annexure-A as well as from the Register of State Medical Council for a period of one year and etc.) 1. The facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner is a Medical Practitioner and is a Consultant in Surgical Gastroenterology and Laparoscopic Surgery. He is also said to be a Multi-organ Transplant Surgeon and was working as a consultant with M/s Fortis Hospital, Bangalore. The petitioner is said to be conferred with innumerable honours both in India and abroad, over the years in recognition of his expertise and advanced knowledge in the field of organ transplantation. During the year 2010, Smt. Seema Rai, the wife of the third respondent was said to have been diagnosed with severe diabetes and end-stage renal failure, was undergoing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3194; 2005(6)KarLJ410
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Dr. K.S. Sunitha is the petitioner in WP No. 14437/2005 and Dr. A. Padmaja is the petitioner in WP No. 14438/2005. Both the petitioners are holders of MBBS Degree and they were appointed as Medical Officers by an order dated 25.7.1997 issued by the Government of Karnataka pursuant to selection made by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. They had joined the services of the State on 13.8.1997 and 14.8.1997 respectively. The petitioners participated in the Post-Graduate Entrance Test 2005 held on 6.2.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha secured 139 marks in the Entrance Test out of 200 marks while Dr. A. Padmaja secured 118 marks out of 200. Both of them appeared for the counselling on 21.4.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha was allotted Post-Graduate seat in MS. OBG though she wanted a seat in MD. Radiology. Dr. A. Padmaja secured a seat for the study of MD. Anesthesiology though her first choice was MS. OBG2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-authorities have made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant386; ILR2005KAR2682; 2005(4)KarLJ279
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioners in these cases have sought for a declaration that the service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year of service on contract basis granted by the Government Order bearing No. HFW 470 MPS 2004, dated 18-1-2005 (Annexure-'B' to the writ petitions) by the Clause reading 'in case of service rendered as contract Doctors, the service weightage so admissible shall be 4 marks for every completed one year of service' is illegal and unconstitutional.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners are aspirants for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental and Diploma Courses for the academic year 2005-2006. They are in-service candidates prescribed under the Rules Governing Admission. They have taken the Entrance Test as in-service candidates. The 1st Petitioner though a Medical Officer in the services of the Government of Karnataka has taken the test as an open category candidate since he does not fall within the definition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: These WPS are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2011 passed by respondent No. 1 as per Annexure-A etc.) Oral: 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 19 09.2011 (Annexure-A) and the notice dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure-B), whereby, the petitioners are held to be not qualified to practise medicine, and hence, their medical clinics are ordered to be closed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is stated that the petitioners are qualified to practise Electro Homeopathy system of medicine, and in support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the two certificates, both dated 12.05.2004 at Annexures-C and D, issued to the petitioners by the Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, Bangalore, two other certificates at Annexures-E and F, a letter dated 14.02.2011 of the Deputy Secretary, Government of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: This WP filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act of 2007, vide Annexure-A as unconstitutional and quash the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-B.) Oral: 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 19.9.2011 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.3 wherein the petitioner has been held to be not qualified to practice medicine, and hence, he is directed to close his medical clinic. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. 3. This writ petition is almost similar to W.P.Nos.67132- 67133/2011 which is dismissed today by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act is unconstitutional as it is c...
Tag this Judgment!