Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          The Authorised Representative of the Complainant is present.

          Today is fixed for passing Order regarding the admission of RA/26/2023 (Review Petition) filed by the Review Applicant Habiba Akhtar in respect of Judgement dt. 21.03.2023 in CC/488/2016 for correction of some errors apparent on the fact of record.

          In course of admission hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative referred to a Judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Mohd. Akram Ansari vs. Chief Election Officer & Ors. [2008 SCC(2) 95]. In that case it was observed, “However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgement of the Court below. The party who has this grievance must approach the same Court which passed the judgement and urge that the other points were pressed but not dealt with.”

          Ld. A.R. also referred to the decision of Malay Ganguly vs. Dr.  Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. reported in (2009) SCC 9, 221. In the Judgement the Hon’ble Apex Court heard that the “failure of the treating Doctor to monitor the vital signs regularly is “certainly an act of negligence” (para 163).

         The A.R. in course of hearing submitted that this Commission accepted that MCI Code of Medical Ethics & Regulations, 2002 (“Code”). The Complainants were attracted to see OP No.2 solely because of his misleading and unlawful advertisement in newspaper which was in violation of the MCI Code and that matter was not reflected in the judgement in question. It is also stated in the review application that the provision of “professional misconduct”, as discussed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & Ors. vs. Master Rishava Sharma & Ors. (2020 SCC 6, 501) has not been mentioned. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the deciding of medical negligence relying upon the findings of medical colleagues of the medical council is not proper, because the doctors of medical council are biased. It is also alleged that numerous judgements including Malay Ganguly (Supr.) and V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr. [2010 CTJ 868 (SC) (CP)] were not mentioned in the impugned judgement. It is also alleged that the impugned was in clear violation of observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Md. Akram Ansari (Supra.). It is also stated that the observation made by this Commission that exoneration of the accused doctor based on Jai Bhagwan Sharma’s study (annexed by the O.P.No.2’s BNA on p.17) was patently wrong and inappropriate because no “Python Sign” was ever tested for the patient. It is also submitted by him the observation made by this Commission in the impugned judgement regarding “Python Sign” was erroneous.

        Referring to the judgement of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 6SCC 1:2005 SCC (Cri) 1369, the A.R. submitted that it was well settled that a decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court while a decision by the civil court binds the criminal court. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court opined on numerous occasions, when a criminal case has to be established “beyond all reasonable doubts” for the prosecution and only “preponderance of probabilities” is necessary to establish a civil case (2022 SCC Online SC 345).

        On the aforesaid grounds, the A.R. submitted for setting aside the impugned judgement. But on careful scrutiny of the instant application and the position of law cited above, we do not find any error apparent in the impugned judgement.

          Because the Review Applicant challenges the interpretation made by this Commission regarding the fact of the case and the position of law referred by the Applicant. Practically, the application for review sounds like a Memorandum of Appeal in disguise of a review application. Undoubtedly this Commission cannot sit as an appellate forum in respect of an order passed by itself.

             So, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record as far as the impugned judgement is concerned.

             So, the Review Application is not fit for admission.

              Accordingly, RA/26/2023 is not admitted and dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.

              ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.