Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Uttarakhand Medical Council & Another on 19 February, 2026

Uttarakhand High Court

Max Healthcare Institute Limited vs Uttarakhand Medical Council & Another on 19 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

               Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures




                                  WPMS No.378 of 2026
                                  Max Healthcare Institute Limited                                 ....Petitioner

                                                               Vs.
                                  Uttarakhand Medical Council & another

                                                                                                   ......Respondents
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Rohit Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent
no.1.

3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent
no.2.

4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner
has put to challenge the judgment and order dated
04.02.2026, passed by the Ethics Committee, Uttarakhand
Medical Council in Complaint No. 295/319 of the year
2025, Col. Amit Kumar vs. Max Healthcare Institute Limited
& others, whereby the petitioner-hospital has been saddled
with a liability to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to respondent
no.2-complainant for negligence shown by the petitioner-
hospital.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-hospital that the respondent-Uttarakhand
Medical Council has no jurisdiction in respect of the
negligence committed by the hospital. In order to buttress
his argument, he refers to Section 10(f) of the Uttarakhand
Medical Council Act, 2002 (for short “the Act, 2002”),
which is quoted hereinbelow:

“10. Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or
2

under the provisions of this Act, the powers, duties and
functions of the council shall be:-

(f) to receive complaints from public (including patients
and their relatives) against misconduct or negligence by
a medical practitioner, to proceed for inquest, take a
decision on the merits of the case and to initiate
disciplinary action or award compensation and similarly
to take action against frivolous complaints.”

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that Section 10 of the Act, 2002 empowers the
Council to receive complaints from the public (including
patients and their relatives) against misconduct or
negligence by a medical practitioner, and to proceed for
inquest, take a decision on the merits of the case, initiate
disciplinary action, award compensation, or similarly take
action against frivolous complaints. It is further argued by
him that the medical practitioner also has been defined
under Section 2(7) the Act, 2002, which is quoted
hereinbelow:

“2(7) “Medical Practitioner” or “Practitioner” means a person
who is engaged in the practice of modern scientific system of
medicine and all its branches and has qualifications as
prescribed in the first, second or third schedules to the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (central Act 102 of 1956).”

7. On the strength of the aforesaid provisions, it is
submitted that the Council has exceeded its jurisdiction by
awarding compensation against the hospital in a complaint
of negligence of the doctor and hospital.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently argued that the judgment is quite
proper and has been passed on the basis of the
3

observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & others vs. Master
Rishab Sharma & others (Civil Appeal No. 6619 of
2016) along with Pooja Sharma & others vs. Maharaja
Agrasen Hospital & others (Civil Appeal No. 9461 of
2019). The Apex Court, though dealing with the matter of a
consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, has opined
that the hospital can be held vicariously liable for the
negligence committed by the doctor working in the
hospital.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the judgment and order impugned, as well
as the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observations passed in the
aforesaid cases, this Court is not impressed with the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

10. In such an era, when big hospitals are running in
society and engaging various doctors for the treatment of
the public, the hospital cannot be left scot-free from being
prosecuted by a court of law for the negligence committed
by the doctor. Accordingly, the interim relief application (IA
No. 1/2026) is hereby rejected.

11. Respondent(s) may file the counter affidavit(s) within
four weeks.

12. List on 25.03.2026.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.02.2026
AK