Pontypridd MP Kim Howells said Ms Hutt had behaved unacceptably after she took two-and-half months to reply to a letter that he had sent her.
In a subsequent letter of complaint obtained by BBC Wales, he questioned her professionalism and criticised her record on the NHS.
She has since apologised for her delay in replying.
Below is a full transcript of his letter of complaint.

Dear Jane,
I am very disappointed to have received via your diary secretary a response to the letter I wrote to you almost two and a half months ago on the subject of liquid oxygen therapy for those suffering from lung diseases.
In the 15 years that I have served as an MP I have rarely, if ever, had to wait so long for a response from a minister of any description or any party.
Never have I had to suffer the discourtesy of a reply on an important subject like this one, not from the minister, but from someone unknown signing it on behalf of the minister's diary secretary.
May I say that I know of no minister who would reject the request of a meeting with an MP or Minister of State.
 | Such behaviour does not smack of a professional approach  |
I have never rejected such a request from a colleague or an AM and I would not dream of instructing my diary secretary to fob-off a request with the information that the distinguished doctor (whom I wrote on behalf of), my researcher and I would be furnished with a copy of a "consultation document", when it is produced.
I don't know why it took you so long to respond to my November 11th letter, nor why you saw fit not to apologise for the delay or even attempt to explain it.
Such behaviour does not smack of a professional approach by your department and offers little encouragement to those of us, inside and outside of politics, who would like to contribute to the debate about how best to deliver improved health care provision in Wales.
It is an improvement that is badly needed and slow in coming.
The issue of liquid oxygen therapy is an extremely important one of the many people in Wales who suffer from lung diseases.
On the evidence of your response I fear that it is not receiving the attention it warrants and I hope very much that you will consider improving the quality of the response of your department to ANYONE who might offer their co-operation on this or any other health care issue, let alone to a Labour minister in a Labour government that provides your department with extremely high levels of funding which we hope are being used to best effect.
Yours, Kim 