A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh, in its February 9 order, underscored that such disputes between doctors are "detrimental to the interest of the hospital itself and cannot be permitted to continue unabatedly". The high court was hearing a plea moved by Dr Subhash Vijayran, a doctor pursuing his MD at the forensic medicine department at MAMC who alleged that various factions within the department were indulging in activities "impeding the functioning of the department." (File) While hearing a matter pertaining to a dispute between two “factions” within the department of forensic medicine at Dr Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC), the Delhi High Court recently said the department ought to “function in an efficient manner in the larger interest of the public and patients”. A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh, in its February 9 order, underscored that such disputes between doctors are “detrimental to the interest of the hospital itself and cannot be permitted to continue unabatedly”. The high court further said, “The Department of Forensic Medicine, MAMC ought to function in an efficient manner in the larger interest of the public and patients… Accordingly, Dr Anil Aggarwal, officiating dean, MAMC shall, interact with all the doctors in the Forensic Medicine department and make enquiries. Dr Aggarwal shall place his report on record in a sealed cover within one week.” The court then listed the matter on March 3 for consideration of the report.

The high court was hearing a plea moved by Dr Subhash Vijayran, a doctor pursuing his MD at the forensic medicine department at MAMC who alleged that various factions within the department were indulging in activities “impeding the functioning of the department” and sought an inquiry. Advocate Gautam Narayan, appearing for the MAMC dean, submitted that there are two factions of doctors in the department which led to the controversy. Additionally, while hearing another plea by Vijayran, the high court directed the Bar Council of Delhi to constitute a disciplinary committee to examine allegations of monetary demands between one Abhijit Mishra and Vijayran. Vijayran, who joined the department on October 20 last year, had argued that there are 13 doctors in the department and due to the internal rift, the department’s functioning was severely impeded. He said Abhijit Mishra represents some of the doctors with whom he had a dispute, and argued that Mishra had levelled various threats against him and had also interacted with him over WhatsApp on behalf of the doctors. Perusing the “continuous” WhatsApp communication between Mishra and Vijayran, who also holds an LLB degree, the high court observed, “The content of the messages, if correct, show that there have been monetary demands by the Respondent no.1 from the petitioner (Vijayran). In the prima facie opinion of this Court, Mr Abhijit Mishra, who is an advocate, ought not to have been entering into such communication with the opposing party – that too in such an improper and impermissible manner”. The high court thereafter directed that the allegations raised in the present plea by Vijayran be treated as a complaint by him against Mishra before the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD). “The same shall be examined by a Disciplinary Committee nominated by the BCD consisting of at least two designated senior advocates who shall file a report before the Court giving their recommendations in the matter,” the high court said, directing that the exercise be completed within two months. The high court directed that the BCD’s disciplinary committee shall be constituted within one week and the first hearing shall take place on February 22 at 4 pm in any chamber/office on the high court premises, listing this plea on April 19. Meanwhile, Mishra sought that Vijayran’s licence to practice law be cancelled in view of the fact that he is working as a doctor and the same cannot be permitted as per BCD rules. Hearing on this proposition was deferred by the court in light of the fact that the petitioner’s plea is pending before the Supreme Court seeking a change to BCD rules which prevent advocates from being in employment.