Venkatesh C v. Tamilnadu Medical Council

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY C.Venkatesh ... Petitioner vs.

1.Tamilnadu Medical Council, Represented by its Registrar, No.959 and 960, Poonamallee High Road Purasaiwakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

2.The Disciplinary Committee, Tamilnadu Medical Council, No.959 and 960, Poonamallee High Road, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu 3.The District Revenue Officer, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Thanjavur District.

5.Dr.Rajareshweri 6.Dr.Rajaramalingam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st and 2nd 1/5

respondents to take appropriate action against the 5th and 6th respondents by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.26 and pass an order within a time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Anand For R1 and R2 :Mr.V.Ramesh For R3 :Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate For R4 :Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.side) *****

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed to direct the first and second respondents to take appropriate action on the respondents 5 and 6 by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.03.2026. 2.Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it can be seen that with reference to the treatment given to the wife of the petitioner, the above complaint of medical negligence was given. 3.When the matter came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the first respondent/Medical Council, took up the issue as per the 2/5

rules and had passed order with reference to the complaint on 09.11.2024 itself exonerating the Doctors concerned and the hospital concerned from the allegations and thereby, dismissed the complaint. 4.In view thereof, the Mandamus, as sought for in the Writ Petition, cannot be granted. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the final order, that was passed on 09.11.2024, appropriate steps in accordance with law shall be taken against this said order. 5.With reference of the order dated 09.11.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that after passing the order, the same is also dispatched with Registered Post along with acknowledgement.

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that now only across the bar, the copy of the order is served on them and the copy of the order was not earlier served on the petitioner. When the petitioner makes such further proceedings, it is for the petitioner to contest the same appropriately before the said authority. 3/5

7.Keeping open the liberty of the petitioner, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Index :Yes / No 30.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr To 1.The Registrar, Tamilnadu Medical Council, No 959 and 960, Poonamallee High Road Purasaiwakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

2.The Disciplinary Committee, Tamilnadu Medical Council, No 959 and 960, Poonamallee High Road, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu 3.The District Revenue Officer, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Thanjavur District.

4/5

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

cmr 30.03.2026 5/5