KEM Hospital to file complaint against errant doctor

Thursday, June 18, 2015

By Abhishek Vissapragada

Complaint being filed after the hospital was instructed to do so by the deputy chief of the BMC

The KEM Hospital at Parel will be filing a complaint soon against Dr. M.L. Saraf, officials told the ADC on Wednesday. The complaint is being filed after Deputy Commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Sanjay Deshmukh ordered the hospital to do so.

Dean of KEM Hospital Avinash Supe said that the legal department of the hospital will be filing the complaint at Bhoiwada police station. “We had received the order from Dehsmukhji and we referred the complaint to our legal department. At first we thought whether we should file a FIR against the doctor but there is already a FIR against him at another police station. We will be filing the complaint against him at the police station,” said Supe.

Supe said that he had sent a letter to the police station to file a complaint against Saraf. “I don't know under which sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) the case will be filed. I had sent a letter requesting them to do so,” said Supe. Senior police inspector (SPI) Sunil Tondwankar also could not reveal any details of the case.

The complaint is being filed after a Colaba resident, Nandini Suchde had sent a letter to Deshmukh in December 2014. Saraf also has two other FIRs filed against him by Suchde under various sections of the IPC.

Suchde's mother Gitika Ghosh, under Saraf's care died in Bombay Hospital in January 2013. After Ghosh's death, Suchde wrote to the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) and the Azad Maidan police in July 2013. The cops then wrote to J J Hospital, asking for opinion. On September 27, 2013, Suchde and the police received a letter from J J Hospital, stating Ghosh’s death was due to “professional negligence”.

A case was registered against Saraf and four other doctors on the panel which treated Ghosh, under Sections 309 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (giving false information), 420 (cheating), 467 (forging documents), 471 (fraudulent use of documents) 109 (abetment) of the IPC. Suchde filed a Right To Information (RTI) application with the MMC to ascertain if Saraf was registered with the Council.

A reply in December 2013 stated he was not registered with MMC, and had, in fact, not renewed his licence since 1988. Suchde filed more applications and, armed with the replies, approached the police to file a case. “Dr. Saraf was receiving monthly salaries of Rs 500, Rs 700 and Rs 1,000 during his tenure in KEM hospital from 1975 to 2005. He was also a part of two other reputed institutions. How could he have continued his practice for almost 27 years without a licence?” wondered Suchde.

Saraf is currently a consultant for General Orthopedics, Joint Replacement Surgery and Arthroscopy and the Head of the Orthopedics Department at Bombay Hospital. “I seek justice for my mother and I hope in the near future I get it,” said Suchde.

The ADC has documents with regards to the case that was shared by Nandini Suchde.

S.K. Iyengar vs Bombay Hospital & Medical ... on 20 December, 2000

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

ORDER Suhas C. Sen, J. President

1. This is an appeal against the order of the State Commission in a case where medical negligence has been alleged against the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre and two Doctors, Dr. M.L. Saraf, Consultant, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Dr. P.L. Tiwari, Consultant Physician. The allegation is that Smt. Janaki K. Iyengar, the mother of the Complainant died because of medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. The deceased was 86 years of age. She was suffering from (i) Diabetes Mellitus; (ii) Hypentation; and (iii) Senile Dementia due to Alzheimebs Disease. The deceased on 27th November, 1997, fell from her bed and suffered a fracture of the thigh bone. The nature of the fracture was such that surgical treatment was necessary. There were risks involved in the surgery which were explained to the relatives to the patient including the Complainant by Dr. Saraf. After fully understanding and after balancing the risks involved in operative versus non-operative treatment, the Complainant opted for surgery. After following the usual procedure and taking every precaution the surgery was carried out on 29th November, 1997. Thereafter, some complications developed and the patient ultimately died on 20th December, 1997.

2. The Complainant has no grievance about the decision to operate upon the patient or the surgery that was done. The grievance raised before us is that the patient having considered her physical condition and old age, should have been taken the post-operative ICU which was not done. It may be mentioned that the State Commission has elaborately gone into this aspect of the matter and examined all the medical reports/medical records of the hospital in this regard. The Commission has come to the finding that although initially the patient was advised to be taken to ICU, the decision was later on changed, but care was taken to watch the pulse, blood-pressure, breathing status of the patient and to control the fluid intake with urine output. This decision was taken not to transfer the patient to ICU in the interests of the patient as it was felt that isolated atmosphere of ICU will not be conducive to the patient's recovery. The patient got the full medical care and attention from the nurses and doctors who looked after the patient. The members of the patient's family were also visited the patient.

3. It has further been found that initially the advice was given by Dr. Tiwari that the patient would require "post-operative care/or post operative ICU". A decision was taken bay the Doctors in the best interest of the patient to provide her with best possible attention and personal care of special nurses and the Doctors and not to keep the patient in ICU. The patient's condition after the first few days of the surgery was stable. Unfortunately, the condition of the patient deteriorated. Thereafter, the patient was taken to ICU. However, in spite of the best efforts, the patient died.

4. It has been stated that the post-operative ICU bed was kept ready for the patient as a precautionary measure on 29th November, 1997, the date of the operation. The surgery went off well. She was under observation for a few hours and a decision was taken after taking into consideration of the factors including the patient's progress and response to the post-operative treatment, to shift the patient to her own private room. The Doctors visited the patient several times during the day and night. At night around 1.30 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. Dr. Saraf personally visited the patient to find out that everything was normal. On 30.11.1997 it was noticed that the blood pressure of the patient had gone down. This was attended to by the Doctors, the Nurses very promptly. After initial treatment, she was shifted to the ICU. Her blood-pressure became normal by 5 p.m. on the same day. On 4th December, 1997, as her condition had improved, she was brought back to her own room. By this time, her surgical wound had healed and sutures were removed and she was able to lift her leg. Due to the problem of Senile Dementia, the patient refused oral nutiriton. She had to be shifted to the ICCU on 16th December, 1997 for adequate electrolyte and fluid balancing. The patient developed Aspiration Penumonitisis and expired on 20th December, 1997.

5. The State Commission has examined the facts in extenso and has found that there was no lack of care and attention on the part of the Doctors and the Nurses in treating the patient. What has been highlighted before us is that the patient was not immediately taken to ICU after the operation. But, it has not been proved before us in any way that this has lead ultimately to the death of the patient. Moreover, a conscious decision was taken to keep the Petitioner in her cabin having regard to the stable condition of her at that time. The decision was taken after taking into consideration various factors which we have referred to earlier in the judgment. It cannot be said that the decision was 

taken arbitrarily or without considering the pros and cons of the age and the condition of the patient.

6. On the facts found by the State Commission, we are of the view that it is difficult to hold that the patient's death was caused by any negligence or by the fact that the patient was not immediately kept in ICU, after the operation. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Five top Mumbai doctors charged with homicide for patient's death

                                           India TV News Desk [Updated: 07 Jul 2016, 17:07:30]

Mumbai: Five top Mumbai doctors have been charged with homicide after a patient died during treatment at Bombay Hospital in January.




Nandini Suchde, 46, a resident of Colaba area, whose mother Gitika Ghosh died during treatment for femur fracture at Bombay hospital in January, has alleged that her mother died due to negligence on doctors' part.

An FIR has been lodged against Dr M L Saraf, Dr P L Tiwari, Dr Parikh, Dr N Bharucha and Dr Borges at Azad Maidan police station and all five have been booked under sections 309 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (giving false information), 420 (cheating), 467 (forging of documents), 471 (fraudulent use of documents), 109 (abetment) and a few other charges.

Medical negligence: FIR against 5 top doctors

Friday, October 25, 2013 12:08:57 PM (IST) Mumbai, Oct 25


 (Mid-Day): Five of the city’s best doctors find their names in the police books after the Azad Maidan police station registered a case of medical negligence against them.

Dr M L Saraf, Dr P L Tiwari, Dr Parikh, Dr N Bharucha and Dr Borges have been booked under sections 309 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (giving false information), 420 (cheating), 467 (forging of documents), 471 (fraudulent use of documents), 109 (abetment) and a few other charges.

The complaint was lodged based on allegations made by Nandini Suchde (46), a Colaba resident, whose mother Gitika Ghosh died while being treated at the hospital due to negligence shown by the medical personnel.

The case

Ghosh had been brought into Bombay Hospital from Kolkata to treat her fractured femur (thigh bone) in January this year. A panel of eight doctors was formed to treat her.

Ghosh claimed that the doctors didn’t take care of her mother and delayed shifting her to the ICU when complications arose, resulting in her death. After Ghosh complained to the police of medical negligence in June, a panel of four doctors from the Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Sir J J Group of Hospitals, was initiated to investigate into the matter. The panel found that there had been professionalnegligence and wrote to the Azad Maidan police with their report.

The letter reads, “As per the documents provided, patient Gitika Ghosh meeting was conducted on 17/06/2013 at 3.00 pm and 25/9/13 at 5.00 pm. After verifying the available documents and going through the documents. It appears to be professional negligence” (Sic) Based on these findings, the police have initiated action against the doctors. Sanjay Dalvi, police inspector from Azad Maidan Police station, the investigating officer for the case said, “We took the case based on the report from the concerned department of J J hospital. We are currently investigating the matter.” Suchde, a resident of Colaba, alleged that the doctors had not taken care of her mother well, and had kept her in the dark about her condition.

“It was an eight-doctor panel but one doctor left the panel midway. Dr Saraf, the head of the panel, without a No Objection Certificate from the departing doctor, brought in Dr P L Tiwari. We came to know later that it was Dr Saraf’s decision to change personnel,” alleged Suchde.

She also claimed that because eight doctors were treating her mother, she was given excessive medicines because of which she was always in a drowsy state during her entire stay at the hospital.  Suchde feels that had the doctors treated her mother on time, she would have been alive today. “I am not fighting for any compensation. I am fighting the case, because I want justice for my mother,” she said.

Hospital speak 

A doctor from the panel clarified, “Ghosh was being treated by eight doctors because she had multiple medical problems such as diabetes and other issues. She was also aged. We tried our best but couldn’t save her.”

Dr Sanjay Sakle, spokesperson for Bombay Hospital said, “The patient was brought in with a femur fracture and other multiple medical complex problems. She was given adequate possible care at the hospital. A panel of eight doctors was treating her. Neither Bombay Hospital nor any of the doctors named have any idea about the FIR registered.”

Dr P L Tiwari was unavailable for comment, and Dr Bharucha’s assistant told this reporter that he would comment on the matter only by Monday.

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: NO DOCTOR NAMED IN PANEL REPORT

DNA CORRESPONDENT | Sat, 26 Oct 2013-10:13am , dna

There will be no arrest in the case of alleged medical negligence by Bombay Hospital doctors till the inquiry is complete. The Azad Maidan police said this while investigating into the death of a Colaba woman’s mother, Gitika Ghosh, who allegedly died due to the negligence of five doctors.

The police are not authorised to register a case against any doctor unless an inquiry by a panel of doctors is conducted and a report submitted to the police. “The panel has submitted a three-line report which only says that the death was due to medical negligence. The report has not named any doctor,” said a source from the Azad Maidan police station.

The complainant, Nandini Suchde, brought her elderly mother from Kolkata in January and got her admitted to Bombay Hospital with a fractured thighbone. A team of eight doctors was formed to treat Ghosh. The complainant told the police that her mother’s condition deteriorated and the doctors delayed in shifting her mother to the ICU. This increased complications and resulted in Ghosh’s death.

In June, Suchde approached the police alleging that her mother had died due to the doctors’ negligence. Suchde’s complaint has named four doctors – Dr ML Saraf, Dr PL Tiwari, Dr Parikh, Dr N Bharucha and Dr Borges.

Ravindra Shisve, deputy commissioner of police, said: “We will record statements of all parties involved. After this, will we decide the next course of action.” The police have booked the doctors under sections of IPC, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cheating, giving false information and abetment.

The case

Nandini Suchde’s elderly mother was admitted to Bombay Hospital with a fractured thighbone and she died during treatment. She has blamed the doctors for the death.

Bombay Hospital’s Dr Murarilal Saraf has two registration numbers !

August 31, 2014

Akela

EARLIER you read that 24 illegal doctors are practicing in Bombay Hospital. Now number has increased. One more (25th) doctor Murarilal Saraf alas ML also practiced for 40 years illegally in Bombay Hospital. Not enough, Saraf also practiced with Navy-run hospital illegally and still practicing in Bombay Port Trust (BPT) hospital illegally.

On August 16, 2014 ABI (abinet.org) has published an article under headline “24 unregistered doctors are practising in Birla’s Bombay Hospital!”

On December 28, 2013, Geetika Ghosh (73) fell in her home at native place in Kolkata. She was admitted in Columbia Asia Hospital in Kolkata. After treating her fractured femur (thigh) bone for six days, on January 2, 2013 she was brought to Mumbai and was admitted in Bombay Hospital. She died during treatment in the Hospital on January 21, 2013. Dr Saraf was leading to the doctor’s team. 

Now further, this expose came to light through a Right to Information (RTI) query by Geetika Ghosh’s daughter Nandini Sachde. In November 2013 Nandini filed a RTI and found that Orthopaedician Dr Murarilal Saraf practiced for 40 years in Bombay Hospital illegally. The first time Saraf was registered with Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC-vide registration No 27723) on December 3, 1971 as a MBBS for post graduation (PG). As per MMC rule doctors should renew his license per five years but Saraf had not renewed his registration. Also Saraf passed out MS (Master of Surgery) in 1974 he has not registered himself for post graduation with MMC which is mandatory. Later in 1989 the council has removed his name from the MMC register as never bothered to renew his registration.

Double registrations

To save his skin and avoid to legal actions Saraf adopted another route to register himself. On October 7, 2013 Saraf applied for fresh registration under Amnesty scheme. However, MMC on October 8, 2013 issued fresh registration certificate (registration No 2013/10/3157) to him.

Remember, the Amnesty Scheme is only for revenue generation not for registration. So Saraf’s this registration also comes under illegal. Strangely, it was learnt that MMC had given fresh registration number under amnesty scheme inspite there being a pending complaint before the MMC itself. Apart from case pending before MMC, there was a criminal proceeding pending against Saraf, the copies of which were very much in the custody of MMC. No doctor can be granted registration under the Amnesty Scheme if any complaint or proceeding is pending against him.

“Strangely Dr M L Saraf is the only in the whole of the state to have been given the benefit of this Amnesty Scheme in order to grant new registration number,” said Nandini.

Serial cheater

Saraf is serial cheater to the government. He cheated not only Bombay Hospital but also KEM Hospital, Navy Hospital and also Bombay Port Trust (BPT) hospital.

The documents shows Saraf practiced first at the BMC-run KEM Hospital- cum-medical-college at Parel since 1975 to 2005, as surgeon.

Cheated to Navy

Saraf’s letter head (available with ABI) shows that he practiced since 1992 to 1995 and 2003 to 2006 as honorary with Navy-run-Ashwini hospital at Colaba.

Cheated to BPT

He also joined BPT hospital in 2001 and still is continuing till date. The BPT administration has complained to Wadala police to register FIR against Saraf. The police has issued letter to Saraf and also recorded statement of Nandini.

Nandini has complained to Medical Council of India (MCI) against Saraf. She also met MCI president in New Delhi on July 26. He assured for action on Saraf.

“Kishor Tawari is protecting to Saraf like a son. I will register FIR against him soon,” said Nandini.

Professional Negligence

Nandini witnessed the negligence of doctors. She complained to several authorities against these doctors. A panel of four doctors from the Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Sir J J Group of Hospitals found that there had been professional negligence in Geetika’s death. ABI is in possession of documents.

FIR registered On basis of that report (copy available with ABI) on October 19, 2013 Azad Maidan police registered FIR (copy available with ABI) under sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (giving false information), 420 (cheating), 467 (forging of documents), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (fraudulent use of documents), and 109 (abetment) of IPC against Dr M L Saraf, Dr P L Tiwari, Dr Parikh, Dr N Bharucha and Dr Borges.

When contacted MMC president Dr Kishor Tawari said, “I don’t remember the case. I don’t know who is this Murari. ? I don’t know the lady. Anyone have right to go anywhere. I never work in pressure. The god is with me.

” Despite repeated attempts Dr Sagar Sakle, Spokesperson Bombay Hospital was not available for comment. All time he disconnected our phone calls.

Mumbai's top doctor was practising without licence for 24 years

An RTI query filed by a bereaved daughter revealed that orthopaedician Dr ML Saraf did not renew his registration with Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) from 1988 to October last year; his name was not in the MMC register when her 73-yr-old mother died under his care last year.
A doctor practising medicine in Maharashtra without renewing his registration with the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) is a quack, by the admission of MMC president Dr Kishore Tawri himself.







Nandini Suchde, who filed the RTI, has alleged that her mother, who was under the care of Dr Saraf (above), died due to negligence



Going by this definition, one such quack is the city’s leading orthopaedician Dr M L Saraf, who works with Bombay Hospital. Asked whether a doctor can still practise without renewing his registration and upon the removal of his name from the MMC register, Dr Tawri said, “A person practising without registration, or renewing his registration is a quack.”

Documents available with MiD DAY show that for nearly 24 years, Dr Saraf didn’t renew his registration with the MMC, something that even caused his name to be removed from the MMC register. The precise duration stretched from 1988 to October 2013. However, Saraf kept on practising, first at the civic-run KEM Hospital- cum-medical-college, and later at Bombay Hospital.



An RTI query was filed by Nandini Suchde, who has also lodged a complaint against Dr Saraf and other doctors of Bombay Hospital at the Azad Maidan police station, for alleged professional negligence that led to the death of her mother Gitika Ghosh

The documents were obtained under the RTI Act by Nandini Suchde, who has also lodged a complaint against Saraf and other doctors of Bombay Hospital at the Azad Maidan police station, for professional negligence (‘5 top doctors from Bombay hospital charged with homicide after patient’s death,’ October 25, 2013). The documents show that Saraf got himself registered with the MMC only after October 2013.




An RTI reply from Maharashtra Medical Council
Suchde has alleged that her mother Gitika Ghosh (73), who was under Saraf’s treatment, died because of negligence on part of the doctors in January 2013 at Bombay Hospital a time when he was not registered with the MMC. The FIR was registered under sections 309 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (giving false information), 420 (cheating), 467 (forging documents), 471 (fraudulent use of documents) 109 (abetment) of the IPC.

“I filed the RTI enquiry with the MMC to find out whether Saraf was registered with the MMC or not. He wasn’t, and documents clearly show it. He finally registered in October 2013. I wonder how a top hospital like Bombay Hospital could have a doctor on its panel who wasn’t registered for nearly 24 years. I feel sad that I got my mother treated under a doctor who wasn’t legitimate, while he was treating her in January 2013,” said Suchde.

RTI response
The RTI response says: ‘The copy of registration certificate of Dr M L Saraf is not available in this office. Originally, Dr Saraf M L was registered with MMC vide registration No 27723 dated 31.12.1971.’ The letter also states, ‘Dr M L Saraf had not renewed his registration till 1988-89.

Council has removed his name from the MMC register for time being. As per amnesty scheme of MMC, Dr Saraf applied for fresh registration on December 8, 2013 and MMC has issued registration certificate under registration No 2013/10/3157 dated October 8, 2013’.

Tawri explained, “MMC is the statutory authority, and rules of the MMC Act state that any doctor practising modern medicine in Maharashtra has to be registered with MMC. In this case, if the doctor’s name has been removed from the register failing renewal, it means that the doctor is practising illegally. It’s like driving a car without a driving licence and calls for criminal liabilities.”

The documents say that Saraf, in October 2013, paid a sum of Rs 29,400, for non-renewal and got a new registration number under the amnesty scheme. Asked whether this Amnesty scheme means retrospective regularisation, Tawri said, “The Amnesty scheme doesn’t mean that one’s past is regularised. While he renews the registration, we take a bond.

Submitting the indemnity bond, the doctor applying for renewal has to tell us on oath that there’s no case against him from the past, and if anything happens then it’s solely his responsibility, not of the MMC.” Dr Sudhakar Sane, the former president of MMC, who is also a lawyer, corroborated these facts, saying, “Practising without renewal of registration is illegal.”

Lawyers confirm
IPS officer-turned-lawyer Y P Singh said, “The law of MMC Act clearly states that any doctor without being registered with the MMC and without renewal, is not allowed to practise modern medicine in Maharashtra. And in this case, the 24 years of practice by the said doctor is illegal.” Vivekanand Gupta, another lawyer, said, “Practising without renewal and registration with MMC is illegal and is a professional misconduct.”

What the indian medical council says
Section 1.1.3 of Chapter 1 of the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulations, 2002, states: No person other than a doctor having qualification recognised by Medical Council of Indian and registered with Medical council of India/State Medical Council (s) is allowed to practise modern system of medicine or surgery.

The other side
Dr Sagar Sakle, spokesperson for Bombay Hospital, said, “Dr Saraf is duly registered with MMC.” When we asked him how he was in the panel when he wasn’t registered from 1988-89 to October 2013, Sakle preferred not to answer. Attempts made by MiD DAY to reach Dr Saraf yielded no result, despite numerous messages and phone calls.

Mumbai's top doctor was practising without licence for 24 years

An RTI query filed by a bereaved daughter revealed that orthopaedician Dr ML Saraf did not renew his registration with Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) from 1988 to October last year; his name was not in the MMC register when her 73-yr-old mother died under his care last year.
A doctor practising medicine in Maharashtra without renewing his registration with the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) is a quack, by the admission of MMC president Dr Kishore Tawri himself.

Nandini Suchde, who filed the RTI, has alleged that her mother, who was under the care of Dr Saraf (above), died due to negligence

Going by this definition, one such quack is the city’s leading orthopaedician Dr M L Saraf, who works with Bombay Hospital. Asked whether a doctor can still practise without renewing his registration and upon the removal of his name from the MMC register, Dr Tawri said, “A person practising without registration, or renewing his registration is a quack.”
Documents available with MiD DAY show that for nearly 24 years, Dr Saraf didn’t renew his registration with the MMC, something that even caused his name to be removed from the MMC register. The precise duration stretched from 1988 to October 2013. However, Saraf kept on practising, first at the civic-run KEM Hospital- cum-medical-college, and later at Bombay Hospital.

An RTI query was filed by Nandini Suchde, who has also lodged a complaint against Dr Saraf and other doctors of Bombay Hospital at the Azad Maidan police station, for alleged professional negligence that led to the death of her mother Gitika Ghosh
The documents were obtained under the RTI Act by Nandini Suchde, who has also lodged a complaint against Saraf and other doctors of Bombay Hospital at the Azad Maidan police station, for professional negligence (‘5 top doctors from Bombay hospital charged with homicide after patient’s death,’ October 25, 2013). The documents show that Saraf got himself registered with the MMC only after October 2013.

An RTI reply from Maharashtra Medical Council
Suchde has alleged that her mother Gitika Ghosh (73), who was under Saraf’s treatment, died because of negligence on part of the doctors in January 2013 at Bombay Hospital a time when he was not registered with the MMC. The FIR was registered under sections 309 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 201 (giving false information), 420 (cheating), 467 (forging documents), 471 (fraudulent use of documents) 109 (abetment) of the IPC.
“I filed the RTI enquiry with the MMC to find out whether Saraf was registered with the MMC or not. He wasn’t, and documents clearly show it. He finally registered in October 2013. I wonder how a top hospital like Bombay Hospital could have a doctor on its panel who wasn’t registered for nearly 24 years. I feel sad that I got my mother treated under a doctor who wasn’t legitimate, while he was treating her in January 2013,” said Suchde.
RTI response
The RTI response says: ‘The copy of registration certificate of Dr M L Saraf is not available in this office. Originally, Dr Saraf M L was registered with MMC vide registration No 27723 dated 31.12.1971.’ The letter also states, ‘Dr M L Saraf had not renewed his registration till 1988-89.
Council has removed his name from the MMC register for time being. As per amnesty scheme of MMC, Dr Saraf applied for fresh registration on December 8, 2013 and MMC has issued registration certificate under registration No 2013/10/3157 dated October 8, 2013’.
Tawri explained, “MMC is the statutory authority, and rules of the MMC Act state that any doctor practising modern medicine in Maharashtra has to be registered with MMC. In this case, if the doctor’s name has been removed from the register failing renewal, it means that the doctor is practising illegally. It’s like driving a car without a driving licence and calls for criminal liabilities.”
The documents say that Saraf, in October 2013, paid a sum of Rs 29,400, for non-renewal and got a new registration number under the amnesty scheme. Asked whether this Amnesty scheme means retrospective regularisation, Tawri said, “The Amnesty scheme doesn’t mean that one’s past is regularised. While he renews the registration, we take a bond.
Submitting the indemnity bond, the doctor applying for renewal has to tell us on oath that there’s no case against him from the past, and if anything happens then it’s solely his responsibility, not of the MMC.” Dr Sudhakar Sane, the former president of MMC, who is also a lawyer, corroborated these facts, saying, “Practising without renewal of registration is illegal.”

Lawyers confirm
IPS officer-turned-lawyer Y P Singh said, “The law of MMC Act clearly states that any doctor without being registered with the MMC and without renewal, is not allowed to practise modern medicine in Maharashtra. And in this case, the 24 years of practice by the said doctor is illegal.” Vivekanand Gupta, another lawyer, said, “Practising without renewal and registration with MMC is illegal and is a professional misconduct.”
What the indian medical council says
Section 1.1.3 of Chapter 1 of the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulations, 2002, states: No person other than a doctor having qualification recognised by Medical Council of Indian and registered with Medical council of India/State Medical Council (s) is allowed to practise modern system of medicine or surgery.
The other side
Dr Sagar Sakle, spokesperson for Bombay Hospital, said, “Dr Saraf is duly registered with MMC.” When we asked him how he was in the panel when he wasn’t registered from 1988-89 to October 2013, Sakle preferred not to answer. Attempts made by MiD DAY to reach Dr Saraf yielded no result, despite numerous messages and phone calls.

Doctor in practice for 25 years without registration faces FIR

An FIR is to be filed against Dr M L Saraf of Bombay Hospital.

By: Express News Service | Mumbai | Published:January 21, 2015 2:21 am

An additional chief metropolitan magistrate Tuesday directed the Azad Maidan police to file an FIR against doctor M L Saraf of Bombay Hospital, for having practised medicine without due registration for about 25 years.

Nadini Suchde (48), a Colaba resident, had registered a case of medical negligence against Saraf and four other doctors from the same hospital, alleging that her mother Gitika Ghosh died during treatment for femur fracture at Bombay Hospital in January 2013 due to negligence on the doctors’ part.

According to the magistrate’s order, Saraf registered himself as a medical practitioner on December 31, 1971, and never renewed his registration.

Sponsored: Launching Vaikunth Phase II in Thane @ Piramal Realty

Hence, in 1988-89, the council had removed his name from the register. Later, he applied for fresh registration in October 8, 2013.

“Considering this aspect and provisions of Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act, it reveals that, there are prima facie ingredients made out for attracting provisions of cognizable, particularly section 33 and 38 of the Indian Medical Practioner’s Act,” the court observed.

According to Suchde, she had sought this information through a Right to Information Act. It is further alleged that she had tried to register new FIR with Azad Maidan police station, but, “for reasons known to the police, no FIR was registered in this cognizable case”. An FIR has been lodged by Suchde against Saraf, Dr P L Tiwari, Dr Parikh,Dr N Bharucha and Dr Borges at Azad Maidan police station.