Through: Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey, Advocate v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2726/2026

3. The present petition is for the following reliefs: “a) direct the Delhi Medical Council to take appropriate action against the Respondent No. 2 for clear medical negligence; and/or b) grant appropriate amount of compensation to the Petitioner and his family for the loss incurred to them due to the medical negligence and non-chalant attitude of a Govt. medical facility towards the life and health of the Petitioner’s wife; and/or KUMAR KAURAV c) grant appropriate amount of compensation for the mental and physical harassment suffered by the Petitioner in the process of treatment of his wife and thereafter; and/or d) pass such any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The facts of the case evince a painful narrative concerning the death of the petitioner’s wife. It is alleged by the petitioner that medical negligence on the part of the doctors of respondent no. 2–G.B. Pant Hospital resulted in the death of the petitioner’s wife late Mrs. Parvati on 22.04.2017.

5. It appears that the petitioner made a complaint to the Delhi Medical Council (hereinafter “DMC”) concerning the aforenoted act of medical negligence. The Executive Committee of the DMC vide order dated 24.04.2018, arrived at the finding that prima facie no case of medical negligence was made out. The said order was, thereafter, confirmed by the DMC in its meeting held on 25.05.2018, and an order to that effect was passed by the DMC on 05.06.2018.

6. The petitioner, subsequently, moved the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “NHRC”) on 02.07.2018, however, his case bearing no. 3661/30/0/2018, was closed vide order dated 27.02.2021, upon returning a finding of medical negligence not being made out. On 12.07.2021, the petitioner filed an application before the NHRC for reopening his case, and another application dated 02.02.2022 was preferred to seek an opportunity of personal hearing. Both the said applications came to be rejected by the NHRC vide orders dated 19.05.2022 and 18.08.2022 respectively.

7. It appears that after the conclusion of the aforenoted proceedings, the petitioner has not taken recourse to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor has he instituted any civil suit.

8. A bare perusal of the prayer clause would reveal that the petitioner has called upon this Court to arrive at a favourable finding of medical negligence. It is but obvious that a substantive adjudication of the case would require this Court to delve into seriously disputed questions of facts, which the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot delve into.

9. In Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh[1] the Supreme Court re-iterated the discretion available with the writ court to decline exercise of its powers when disputed questions of facts are involved. The material portion of the judgement reads as under “27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.”

10. This Court in IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd.[2] while analysing the impermissibility of entertaining writs which have their origin in private and not public law has held as under:

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and the law discussed above the Court does not deem it fit to entertain the present petition. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

12. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the instant petition stands disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.