Disciplinary Proceedings Against Doctors in India

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary proceedings against doctors in India primarily deal with allegations of professional or ethical misconduct by registered medical practitioners and are distinct from civil compensation claims and criminal prosecution.
• The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 provides the present statutory framework, while State Medical Councils ordinarily exercise disciplinary jurisdiction where empowered under State law.
• The Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB) regulates professional conduct, promotes medical ethics and exercises appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary action taken by State Medical Councils.
• The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 presently provide the operative professional ethics framework. The NMC Professional Conduct Regulations, 2023 were placed in abeyance in August 2023.
• A disciplinary enquiry must provide the registered medical practitioner with an opportunity of hearing. This requirement reflects the broader principles of natural justice.
• Depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, disciplinary consequences may include an appropriate punishment, temporary removal from the medical register or permanent removal from the register.
• A doctor aggrieved by action of a State Medical Council can appeal to the EMRB, followed by a second appeal to the National Medical Commission in accordance with Section 30 of the NMC Act, 2019.

What Are Disciplinary Proceedings Against Doctors?

Disciplinary proceedings against doctors are regulatory proceedings initiated to determine whether a registered medical practitioner has committed professional or ethical misconduct.

Medical practitioners occupy a position involving specialised knowledge, patient trust and significant professional responsibility. Registration to practise medicine is therefore accompanied by duties relating to professional competence, patient care, medical records, confidentiality, ethical conduct and compliance with applicable law.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

Where a doctor is alleged to have violated these obligations, the appropriate medical regulatory authority may examine the complaint and initiate disciplinary action.

The purpose of such proceedings is not merely to compensate an individual patient. Their wider objective is to maintain professional standards, protect the integrity of the medical profession and ensure accountability among registered medical practitioners.

What Law Governs Disciplinary Proceedings Against Doctors in India?

The principal statutory framework is contained in the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, particularly Sections 27 and 30.

Section 27 assigns important functions to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, including:

Explore LawBhoomi's free law library for students and lawyers.

Visit Library →

• Regulating professional conduct and medical ethics: The EMRB is responsible for establishing and promoting ethical standards applicable to registered medical practitioners.
• Ensuring compliance through State Medical Councils: Where State Medical Councils possess disciplinary powers under State law, professional and ethical standards are enforced through those Councils.
• Coordinating with State Medical Councils: The Board maintains interaction with State Councils for effective regulation of registered medical practitioners.
• Exercising appellate jurisdiction: The EMRB hears appeals against disciplinary actions taken by State Medical Councils in accordance with Section 30.

Section 30 deals specifically with disciplinary action relating to professional or ethical misconduct. Where a State law empowers a State Medical Council to take disciplinary action, the Council exercises those powers in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.

Which Professional Conduct Regulations Apply Currently?

The regulatory position requires particular attention.

The National Medical Commission notified the National Medical Commission Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2023 on 2 August 2023.

However, those regulations were subsequently placed in abeyance through the notification dated 23 August 2023.

The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 were adopted and made effective under the framework of the National Medical Commission Act.

Accordingly, the 2002 Regulations presently provide the operative professional ethics framework applicable to registered medical practitioners.

Who Can Take Disciplinary Action Against a Doctor?

Disciplinary jurisdiction primarily operates through the State Medical Councils and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board.

Discover the latest legal jobs and career openings.

View Jobs →

State Medical Councils

Section 30 of the NMC Act recognises the disciplinary role of State Medical Councils where a State Act confers such powers upon them.

A State Medical Council may therefore examine complaints alleging professional or ethical misconduct committed by registered medical practitioners falling within its jurisdiction.

The precise procedure may also depend upon the relevant State Medical Council legislation and applicable procedural rules.

Ethics and Medical Registration Board

The EMRB is one of the autonomous boards functioning under the National Medical Commission.

Apart from regulating professional conduct and promoting medical ethics, it exercises appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions taken by State Medical Councils.

Where a State Medical Council has not been established, Section 30 permits the EMRB to receive complaints and grievances relating to professional or ethical misconduct in that State until such Council is established.

What Amounts to Professional Misconduct by a Doctor?

Chapter 7 of the 2002 Regulations identifies several acts and omissions that may constitute professional misconduct.

Importantly, the specified grounds are not exhaustive. The disciplinary authority may consider other conduct amounting to professional misconduct even where it does not fall squarely within one of the expressly listed categories.

Some important grounds are discussed below.

Access subject-wise law notes for free on LawBhoomi.

Explore Notes →

Violation of Professional Ethics Regulations

A violation of obligations contained in the professional conduct regulations may itself amount to misconduct.

This creates a broad professional obligation requiring doctors to comply with ethical standards governing medical practice. The wider duties of a medical professional or doctor include duties relating to reasonable care, records, confidentiality, consent and responsible professional conduct.

Failure to Maintain or Provide Medical Records

Failure to properly maintain prescribed medical records or refusal to provide them within the prescribed period when lawfully requested can constitute professional misconduct.

The 2002 Regulations require records of indoor patients to be maintained for three years from commencement of treatment.

They also require requested medical records to be provided within 72 hours to the patient, authorised attendant or legal authority.

Medical records may include prescriptions, diagnosis, investigation reports, treatment notes, consent forms, operation notes and discharge summaries.

The right of patients to obtain such records is also important in disputes concerning treatment and medical negligence.

Failure to Display Registration Number

A registered practitioner is required to display the registration number granted by the appropriate medical authority in the prescribed manner.

The registration number must also appear on relevant prescriptions, certificates and professional documents as required by the applicable ethical rules.

Failure to comply with these requirements may attract disciplinary consequences.

Improper Conduct With Patients

Abuse of the professional relationship with a patient may constitute serious professional misconduct.

The doctor-patient relationship is based on trust, professional responsibility and appropriate boundaries. Conduct that exploits or improperly abuses that relationship may therefore justify disciplinary intervention.

Breach of Patient Confidentiality

Medical information obtained during diagnosis and treatment is generally confidential.

Unauthorised disclosure may result in disciplinary concerns unless disclosure is justified under law or falls within a recognised exception.

The rules governing disclosure of a patient’s medical information without consent recognise that confidentiality is not absolute, but disclosure must ordinarily have an appropriate legal or ethical basis.

Confidentiality remains one of the central duties arising from the doctor-patient relationship.

False Certificates and Professional Documents

Issuing false, misleading or improper certificates, reports or professional documents may constitute misconduct.

Medical certificates can have consequences in employment, insurance, litigation and administrative proceedings. Their preparation therefore carries significant professional responsibility.

Facilitating Unqualified Medical Practice

A registered practitioner may face disciplinary consequences where professional status is improperly used to assist or enable an unqualified person to practise medicine or undertake medical procedures.

Professional registration cannot legitimately be used to facilitate practice by persons who are not legally qualified or authorised.

Unethical Prescribing and Drug-Related Practices

Professional obligations also extend to responsible prescribing and compliance with applicable requirements governing medicines and medical practice.

Improper prescription practices, prohibited professional arrangements or misuse of professional authority may raise disciplinary concerns depending upon the circumstances.

Treatment Without Proper Consent

Consent forms an important part of lawful and ethical medical treatment.

A competent adult ordinarily has the right to decide whether to undergo medical treatment. A doctor generally cannot carry out a significant procedure without valid consent except where a legally recognised exception applies.

The legal position regarding whether a doctor can treat a patient without consent becomes particularly important in surgery, invasive procedures and emergency treatment.

Depending upon the facts, failure to obtain appropriate consent may raise questions of professional misconduct as well as civil liability.

How Is a Disciplinary Complaint Against a Doctor Filed?

Regulation 8.2 of the 2002 Regulations provides that a complaint regarding professional misconduct may be brought before the appropriate Medical Council for disciplinary action.

The complaint ordinarily identifies:

• The medical practitioner concerned: Details sufficient to identify the registered doctor against whom misconduct is alleged should ordinarily be provided.
• The treatment or conduct complained of: The complaint should explain the relevant incident, procedure, professional behaviour or omission.
• The alleged professional violation: The conduct said to amount to professional or ethical misconduct should be clearly stated.
• Relevant dates and circumstances: A chronological explanation assists the disciplinary authority in understanding the dispute.
• Supporting documents: Prescriptions, medical records, reports, correspondence, discharge summaries, certificates and other relevant documents may be important.

Depending upon the grievance, different legal forums may sometimes be available. For example, professional misconduct ordinarily falls within the medical regulatory framework, while compensation for negligent medical services may be pursued through other legal remedies.

The available forums are discussed separately in relation to where a patient can complain about medical negligence.

What Happens After a Complaint Is Filed?

Once a complaint alleging professional misconduct is received, the appropriate Council may examine whether the allegations require disciplinary enquiry.

Regulation 8.2 expressly contemplates an enquiry into allegations of professional misconduct.

A disciplinary authority must examine the allegations, the practitioner’s response, relevant documents, medical material and any expert or professional assessment required by the nature of the case.

Disciplinary proceedings cannot be reduced to the mere existence of an adverse medical outcome.

The central question is whether the conduct amounts to a violation of applicable professional and ethical standards.

Does a Doctor Have the Right to Be Heard?

Yes.

The right to a hearing is expressly protected under the NMC Act and the disciplinary provisions of the 2002 Regulations.

Section 30(2) of the National Medical Commission Act requires the EMRB or State Medical Council, as applicable, to provide the medical practitioner concerned with an opportunity of hearing before taking action, including the imposition of a monetary penalty.

Regulation 8.2 further provides that the practitioner must be given an opportunity to be heard in person or through a pleader.

This reflects the principles of natural justice.

A disciplinary proceeding capable of affecting professional registration, reputation and the right to practise cannot ordinarily be decided without allowing the practitioner to answer the allegations.

The hearing rule, commonly expressed through the principle audi alteram partem, requires a fair opportunity to present the other side before an adverse decision is taken.

What Evidence Is Considered in Disciplinary Proceedings?

The nature of evidence depends upon the allegation.

Relevant material may include:

• Medical and hospital records: Case sheets, treatment notes, nursing records and other contemporaneous documents may show what treatment was actually provided.
• Prescriptions and investigation reports: These may assist in assessing diagnosis, medication and clinical decision-making.
• Consent forms: Consent documents may become particularly important where the complaint relates to surgery, invasive treatment or failure to disclose necessary information.
• Treatment notes and discharge summaries: These may provide a chronological record of the patient’s condition and medical management.
• Professional correspondence: Communications between doctors, hospitals, patients or other healthcare professionals may become relevant.
• Expert medical opinion: Technical medical questions may require evaluation by qualified medical professionals.
• Statements of the parties: The complainant and the medical practitioner may provide their respective accounts of the events.
• Other relevant documents: Certificates, referrals, laboratory reports, imaging reports and administrative records may also be considered.

Medical records can be especially important because they provide contemporaneous evidence of diagnosis, treatment, advice and clinical decision-making.

How Is Professional Incompetence Assessed?

Regulation 8.6 provides that professional incompetence shall be judged by a peer group in accordance with applicable guidelines.

This is important because allegations involving diagnosis, treatment choices, operative techniques or professional competence frequently require specialised medical knowledge.

A poor outcome by itself does not automatically prove professional incompetence.

Similarly, an error of judgment does not automatically make a doctor liable. The real issue is whether reasonable professional skill and care were exercised in the circumstances existing at the relevant time.

Can a Doctor Be Restricted During a Pending Enquiry?

Yes, but the power is specifically framed.

Under Regulation 8.5, during the pendency of a complaint, the appropriate Council may restrain the practitioner from performing the particular procedure or practice that is under scrutiny.

This operates as an interim regulatory measure while the complaint is being examined.

It is different from a final finding of misconduct and should therefore not be confused with the ultimate disciplinary punishment.

How Long Should Disciplinary Proceedings Take?

Regulation 8.4 of the 2002 Regulations states that a decision on a complaint against a delinquent physician should be taken within six months.

The provision reflects the importance of timely resolution.

Delay can adversely affect both sides. A complainant may remain without regulatory resolution, while a doctor may continue to face uncertainty regarding professional reputation and registration.

What Punishment Can Be Imposed on a Doctor?

Where professional misconduct is established, Regulation 8.2 empowers the appropriate Medical Council to award such punishment as considered necessary.

The Council may also direct removal of the practitioner’s name from the medical register:

• For a specified period: Registration may be suspended through removal of the practitioner’s name for the period determined by the disciplinary authority.
• Permanently: Serious misconduct may result in permanent removal from the medical register.

The consequence of removal is significant because professional registration is central to lawful medical practice.

Where removal is for a limited period, Regulation 8.3 permits the Council to direct restoration of the practitioner’s name after expiry of that period.

The nature of disciplinary action therefore depends upon the seriousness and circumstances of the misconduct established in the particular case.

Can a Doctor Appeal Against a Disciplinary Order?

Yes. The National Medical Commission Act provides a structured appeal mechanism.

First Appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board

Under Section 30(3), a medical practitioner or professional aggrieved by action taken by a State Medical Council may appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board.

The EMRB examines the disciplinary action at the appellate level.

Its decision is binding on the State Medical Council unless a second appeal is preferred in accordance with the Act.

Second Appeal to the National Medical Commission

Section 30(4) provides that a practitioner aggrieved by a decision of the EMRB may prefer a second appeal to the National Medical Commission.

The second appeal must be filed within 60 days from communication of the EMRB decision.

The NMC also operationalised an online appeal mechanism in 2026 for registered medical practitioners filing appeals under Section 30.

Are Disciplinary Proceedings the Same as Medical Negligence Cases?

No. Professional disciplinary liability, civil liability and criminal liability are legally different.

A single incident may sometimes lead to more than one proceeding, but the purpose, legal standard and consequences of each proceeding remain different.

Disciplinary Liability

Disciplinary proceedings examine whether the practitioner breached professional or ethical standards.

The consequences principally concern professional regulation, including disciplinary punishment and registration.

The central issue is therefore professional accountability rather than compensation for injury.

Civil or Consumer Liability

Civil proceedings ordinarily concern compensation for injury or loss caused by negligent medical treatment.

The purpose is primarily compensatory rather than disciplinary.

Medical negligence may also amount to deficiency in service in appropriate circumstances. The relationship between negligence and patient remedies is examined in more detail under medical negligence and consumer rights in healthcare.

A medical negligence claim may also be maintainable before a Consumer Commission where the legal requirements relating to consumer jurisdiction and medical services are satisfied.

Criminal Liability

Criminal liability involves a substantially different and higher legal threshold.

In Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court explained that negligence sufficient for civil liability does not automatically amount to criminal negligence.

Criminal prosecution of a medical professional requires negligence of a sufficiently serious degree.

The present criminal law framework must also be read with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The circumstances in which a doctor can face imprisonment for medical negligence therefore differ materially from ordinary disciplinary proceedings.

Can Every Medical Error Amount to Professional Misconduct?

No.

Medical practice involves professional judgment, uncertain outcomes and situations where reasonable practitioners may adopt different approaches.

An undesirable outcome, unsuccessful treatment, complication or genuine difference of medical opinion does not by itself establish professional misconduct.

Similarly, a wrong diagnosis is not automatically medical negligence. The relevant enquiry generally concerns whether the medical practitioner exercised reasonable professional skill and care in the circumstances.

Where an allegation concerns professional competence, technical medical assessment becomes particularly important.

The 2002 Regulations recognise this by providing for evaluation of professional incompetence by a peer group.

The disciplinary authority must therefore examine the actual conduct alleged rather than assume misconduct merely because treatment did not produce the expected result.

Importance of Natural Justice in Medical Disciplinary Proceedings

Disciplinary proceedings can have serious consequences for a doctor’s livelihood, reputation and ability to practise.

The principles of natural justice therefore remain central to the process.

Important safeguards include:

• Proper communication of allegations: The practitioner should know the substance of the misconduct alleged so that an effective response can be made.
• Reasonable opportunity to respond: Adequate opportunity should be available to answer allegations and place relevant material before the disciplinary authority.
• Consideration of relevant evidence: Medical records, expert material and other relevant documents should be assessed before a conclusion is reached.
• Opportunity of hearing: An adverse disciplinary order should not ordinarily be passed without giving the practitioner the hearing required by law.
• Technical assessment where necessary: Questions of professional competence may require evaluation by qualified peers rather than conclusions based merely on an adverse outcome.
• Fair and reasoned decision-making: The authority should decide the matter objectively on the basis of relevant material and applicable professional standards.

The express hearing requirement under Section 30 of the NMC Act gives statutory recognition to an important component of procedural fairness.

At the same time, procedural protection for practitioners does not diminish the regulatory objective of protecting patients and maintaining ethical standards.

Conclusion

Disciplinary proceedings against doctors in India form an important part of medical professional regulation. They provide a mechanism through which allegations of professional or ethical misconduct can be examined while also ensuring procedural fairness to registered medical practitioners.

The National Medical Commission Act, 2019, State Medical Council laws and the presently operative Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 together form the central framework. State Medical Councils ordinarily deal with disciplinary complaints, while the Ethics and Medical Registration Board has important regulatory and appellate responsibilities.

A complaint may arise from violation of professional ethics, failure to maintain records, improper conduct with patients, confidentiality breaches, false professional certificates, professional incompetence or other conduct capable of amounting to professional misconduct. The listed grounds are not exhaustive.

At the same time, disciplinary liability must remain distinct from civil medical negligence and criminal prosecution. Medical disciplinary proceedings concern professional standards and continued entitlement to practise medicine. Their fairness therefore depends upon both effective accountability and observance of natural justice, including proper enquiry, opportunity of hearing and access to the statutory appeal mechanism.