Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. Kunal Saha
……Petitioner
Versus
Ms. Mamta Banerjee & Anr.
…Respondents
INDEX
DISTRICT: KOLKATA
LISTS OF DATES
1) May 28, 1998: Petitioner’s wife, Anuradha Saha, died due to medical
petitioner’s wife.
3) May 23, 2011: Medical Council of India (MCI) held Dr. Mukherjee
6) July 12, 2012: State Health Department issues an Order appointing Dr.
(PIL).
4
DISTRICT: KOLKATA
Points of Law
3. Whether any person, even the chief minister of a state, can trample
over the fundamental rights for equality, life and liberty of a private
wife’s death by using the state’s machinery in the most arbitrary and
capricious manner?
6
4. Whether any person, even the chief minister of a state, can select a
6. Whether any person, even the chief minister of a state, can appoint a
the MCI?
of India?
8. Whether any person, even the chief minister of a state, can lower the
DISTRICT: KOLKATA
Appellate Side
AND
8
matter thereof;
AND
AND
AND
across India;
AND
misconduct”;
10
AND
AND
Kolkata 700056.
…………….Petitioner
Versus
Kolkata 700001;
…….Respondents
To,
The Hon’ble Mr. Jainarayan Patel, The Chief Justice and His Companion
been permanently settled in the USA for the past more than two decades
system and to help the victims of “medical negligence” in West Bengal and
across India.
13
horrific personal tragedy in life in 1998 as while visiting India with his wife,
Anuradha Saha, she died at an age of only 36 falling victim to gross medical
Mukherjee (Respondent no. 3). After more than a decade of legal battle
from USA, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held Dr. Mukherjee primarily
responsible for the death of petitioner’s wife (AIR 2010 SC 1162; Malay
Ganguly vs. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.). Dr. Mukherjee used a steroid
Mukherjee guilty for medical negligence, Hon’ble Apex Court also made
In fact, while remitting the matter back to the National Consumer Forum
by Dr. Mukherjee (and two other doctors and AMRI Hospital), Hon’ble
Apex Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh only against Dr. Mukherjee for
the “stand taken and conduct” (para 203) clearly indicating that Dr.
Mukherjee played the most heinous role in causing the death of petitioner’s
wife. In fact, Dr. Mukherjee also filed a review petition against the Apex
Court’s decision which was also promptly dismissed by the Supreme Court.
enshrined under Article 144 of Indian Constitution, every authority, civil and
Supreme Court’s decision and they shall act in aid of the Apex Court’s
3. That NCDRC also fined Dr. Mukherjee for Rs. 40.40 lakh, highest
already paid this compensation to your petitioner, Hon’ble Apex Court has
Mukherjee and found him guilty for medical negligence and “professional
23rd May, 2011. However, Dr. Muherjee’s medical registration has not been
before this Hon’ble Court (W.P. No. 9758 of 2011). A copy of the said
5. That although Dr. Mukherjee was found guilty for gross medical
negligence both by the Hon’ble Apex Court and MCI, the WBMC
WBMC who voted to acquit Dr. Mukherjee were recently indicted for
“criminal conspiracy” and processes have been issued against them under
16
Section 201 (read with Section 120B IPC) on 19th August, 2011 by the
C/20678 of 2011; Dr. Kunal Saha vs. Dr. Ashok Chowdhury & Ors.). This
underscores the strong level of personal influence that Dr. Mukherjee enjoys
over the state medical council and health department in West Bengal.
6. That despite being found guilty for gross medical negligence by the
Apex Court and even after losing medical registration by the MCI, Dr.
Mukherjee was lauded and glorified at an open public function on April 20,
2012 by the Respondent no. 1, who is also the chief minister as well as
health minister of West Bengal. The Respondent no. 1 did not even care to
Constitution that all authorities must act to aid the Supreme Court that had
already held Dr. Mukherjee guilty for medical negligence and chastised him
severely for his deplorable “stand taken and conduct” (AIR 2010 SC 1162).
that Dr. Mukherjee was the most “eminent” physician in West Bengal who
should be appointed as the “chief advisor” for the health department in order
to improve the ailing healthcare system in the state. The said program
hosted by Respondent no. 1 and the medical wing of the state government to
promote Dr. Mukherjee to the post of “chief advisor” for the health
17
(Annexure-P2).
circular/order dated July 12, 2012 with formal announcement that Dr.
Mukherjee has been appointed as the “chief advisor” with sweeping and
wide-spread power not only to control medical education and training but
providers in West Bengal. A copy of the said circular/order dated July 12,
2012 passed by the West Bengal health department is annexed and marked
as Annexure-P3.
out that despite such unequivocal findings of guilt for excessive use of
steroids (“Depomedrol”) both by the Hon’ble Apex Court and MCI, Dr.
the state.
to appoint Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the health department on
the face of his conviction by the Hon’ble Apex Court and suspended medical
10. That the arbitrary, capricious and mala fide action by Respondent no.
Constitution and would certainly lower public trust in the entire judicial
Respondent no. 1 to appoint Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the
rights for equality while Article 21 provides rights to life and liberty for all
citizens in India. The arbitrary and mala fide action by Respondent no. 1 to
elevate Dr. Mukherjee to the post of “chief advisor” for the health
Court for causing death of petitioner’s wife has candidly trampled over the
fundamental rights for life, liberty and equal treatment. It may be noted that
starting from E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555), the
the Constitution of India (AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1980 SC 1992). In the
India & Ors. (1991 SCC 4, 1991), the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically
held that courts should declare an legislative act invalid if it infringes any of
the fundamental rights for the citizens that are protected under the
(para 62). The blatantly arbitrary and mindless action by Respondent no. 1
using her position in the government to appoint Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief
advisor” for the health department has not only violated the fundamental
rights of the petitioner that are protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution but it has also violated Article 144 of the Constitution
12. That being deeply aggrieved, hurt and dissatisfied with the arbitrary,
Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the health department, your petitioner
GROUNDS:
I. For that the appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 which lowers public trust in the judiciary and
II. For that the appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for
Ganguly (Supra.).
III. For that the appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for
fundamental rights for equal treatment and rights to life and liberty of
IV. For that the appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for
V. For that appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the
mg twice daily “is not supported by any school of thought” and that
department would give a green signal to all doctors for excessive use
of steroids which is likely to pose great danger for all patients in West
Bengal.
VI. For that promotion of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the
a reckless and negligent physician who was ignorant about the danger
and “basic hazards” for excessive use of steroids. The lofty praise of
VII. For that selection of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the
criticism by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the MCI. The
VIII. For that appointment of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the
West Bengal many of whom are well aware about the heinous role
has been highly publicized in West Bengal and across India over the
years ever since petitioner's wife died from wrongful treatment by Dr.
IX. For that selection of Dr. Mukherjee as the “chief advisor” for the
the highest court of the land as well as the highest medical regulatory
authority (MCI) that his wife had died due to negligent treatment by
supreme and it trumps over any other condition that may conflict with
13) That the petitioner has not filed any similar writ petition in this
Hon’ble Court or any other High Court or Supreme Court of India or in any
14) That your petitioner states that it is a fit case for urgent judicial
intervention for the sake of public health and for the ends of justice.
15) That the records are lying in the appellate side Jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
16) That this application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.
25
set aside;
same;
26
(Annexure-P3).
(d) above;
proper;
And for this act of kindness, your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
27
AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr. Kunal Saha, son of Late Dr. J. Saha, by faith- Hindu, by occupation
1. That I’m the petitioner herein and as such, I am well acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of this writ petition.
2. That the statements made in paragraph nos. 1-12 are true to the best of
my knowledge and paragraph nos. 13-16 are my respectful submission
before this Hon’ble Court.
COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT: KOLKATA
AND
WRIT PETITION
DISTRICT: KOLKATA
CAUSE TITLE
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. Kunal Saha
……Petitioner
Versus
Ms. Mamta Banerjee & Ors.
…Respondents