Punjab and Haryana HC stays Human Rights panel's summons to doctors in body-withholding case
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Patiala: Allegations that a patient’s body was withheld over unpaid hospital dues have reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has stayed directions issued by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC) requiring the personal appearance of doctors and hospital directors in the matter.
The case arose after reports alleged that a private hospital demanded a substantial payment before releasing the body of a deceased patient. The PSHRC intervened in the matter and initiated suo motu proceedings while summoning officials from the hospital in Mohali and Patiala. However, the High Court has now intervened, staying the Commission’s orders that mandated the personal appearance of the treating doctor and hospital directors, and directing that affidavits with supporting documents be filed instead.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed the interim order on Tuesday, granting relief to hospital officials. The bench also observed that it would later examine whether the suo motu cognizance of the matter had been validly taken by a single non-judicial member of the Commission without circulation among other members.
According to The Indian Express, the controversy came to light after a Hindi daily reported that a private hospital had allegedly demanded a substantial payment, initially cited as around Rs 7.21 lakh and later amplified on social media to Rs 35 lakh, before releasing the body of a patient from Patiala. Acting on the news report, a single non-judicial member of the PSHRC took suo motu cognizance on December 16, 2025, and sought reports from the Civil Surgeon and other authorities.
Subsequently, the Commission summoned the director and officials of the hospital and issued strong observations, cautioning that the director should appear in person in future hearings. The PSHRC also directed the Civil Surgeon, SAS Nagar, and the Deputy Commissioner to submit detailed inquiry reports. A four-member medical board was constituted to review the patient’s records, the treatment provided, and the circumstances surrounding the death and retention of the body.
The treating doctor was directed to appear before the Commission to answer questions regarding the diagnosis, management, and referral of the patient from Patiala hospital to the hospital in Mohali. Notices were also issued to the directors of both hospitals, requiring their personal presence.
The Commission further asked the hospitals to file affidavits with details of the billing practices, including charges for rooms, procedures, medicines, and other services, in order ot expand the scope of the inquiry beyond the initial allegation. Historical documents such as land allotment papers from 2009 and the hospital’s completion and occupation certificates from 2012 were also sought.
The matter took a more dramatic turn when the same PSHRC member publicly commented on the case through interviews and podcasts, stating that FIRs would be registered against the hospital directors and the treating doctor and remarking that “heavens will not fall” if the doctor appeared before the Commission.
Proceedings were reportedly recorded and shared on private social media accounts, along with statements that he would “settle” the matter and ensure registration of FIRs. Senior Advocate AS Rai, appearing for one of the hospitals, termed the proceedings “publicity-hungry litigation.”
Before the High Court, Rai argued that the Civil Surgeon’s report is based on clarifications from the Hospital, which had concluded that the dispute was related to payment and not medical negligence, and that no evidence of human rights violation had emerged. He further submitted that a board of four doctors had reviewed the medical records and the treating doctor’s statement and found no lapse in treatment or in the decision to shift the patient to Max Hospital.
It was also contended that the patient’s family had submitted a written request to retain the body for 12 hours, following which it was released, and that CCTV footage did not show any coercion in relation to the payment of approximately Rs 1 lakh.
Rai maintained that the PSHRC members’ directions seeking personal appearances, calling for FIRs, and expanding the probe into billing structures, while simultaneously making public comments, went beyond the Commission’s recommendatory jurisdiction and created an appearance of bias.
Taking note of the submissions, the division bench stayed all PSHRC orders requiring the personal appearance of the directors of Max and Manipal Hospitals and the treating doctor. Instead, the Court directed that affidavits along with supporting documents be filed. Further hearing on the matter is scheduled to take place on February 17. The bench has also urged the Commission not to precipitate the proceedings in the meantime.
