Sanctity of medical care breached! HC orders FIR against doctors, 1 from Fortis Hospital
Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has issued an order to register a medical negligence FIR against two doctors attached to private hospitals, including Fortis Hospital Bengaluru and GM Hospitals, for allegedly operating on a patient without obtaining proper consent. After undergoing two operations at two hospitals, the patient passed away.
Approaching the High Court bench, the patient's son alleged that even though the accused doctor at Bengaluru-based GM Hospital obtained consent for inserting a catheter on the right side of his father's body, the procedure was conducted on the left side.
Since the patient's condition deteriorated, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, where the second-accused doctor operated on the patient. The complainant alleged that this operation was done without consent, and while undergoing the surgery, his father succumbed to cardiac arrest.
Taking note of the matter, the HC bench comprising Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the Police to register an FIR in the matter and proceed in accordance with the law.
"When the sanctity of medical care is breached by alleged negligence, it is not merely a lapse of procedure, but a desecration of dignity inherent in human life," observed the bench.
"The patient, entrusting their vulnerability to the hands of the Doctor, becomes the silent victim of apathy. Their right to life of dignity gets extinguished, not by fate but by failure. In the mosaic of facts and the binding precedents quoted hereinabove, this Court finds it imperative to uphold the dignity of human life. The petitioner who has lost his father, under circumstances that cry for an investigation, cannot be left remediless," it further noted.
The petitioner had alleged that his father lost his life due to negligence of the treating doctors. However, his complaint was summarily rejected by the jurisdictional police by rendering a non-cognizable report, as, according to police, it was a case to be preferred before the Karnataka Medical Council under the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961. It has been alleged that the Assistant Police Commissioner and the Deputy Police Commissioner also did not take any action. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the HC bench.
It was argued by the petitioner that there was gross negligence on the part of the Doctor, who inserted the Catheter at the wrong place and blocked his father's jugular vein, leading to stoppage of blood flow back from the Catheter.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the life of a breadwinner of the family was lost by a wrong insertion of the Perma Catheter. He cited a preliminary inquiry report from the Victoria Hospital, which opined that the Doctor who operated for the purpose of the Catheter was responsible for the death.
On the other hand, the High Court Government Pleader vehemently refuted the submissions and contended that the complaint could not become a crime for criminal negligence on the part of the Doctors, but at best it could be a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council under the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961. He also submitted that a complaint in this regard was registered before KMC and both the doctors of G.M. Hospital and Fortis Hospital were issued notice on 10.06.2025. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the plea, holding that it did not amount to criminal negligence and no crime should be permitted to be registered against the Doctors.
After going through the records, the bench noted that the petitioner's consent was not obtained for the change of type of surgery. It further noted that the catheter was inserted on the wrong side without the consent of the petitioner, H.D. Catheter was again inserted when permission/consent was obtained for perma Catheter, surgery was performed by the duty doctor instead of the surgeon. Further, the Court noted that the doctors had allegedly failed to take corrective measures to alleviate the deteriorating condition of the patient in the emergency.
The bench also referred to the report of the medical committee constituted by the Court and the report furnished by Victoria Hospital. The bench observed, "The Medical Committee constituted post facto, observes inter alia that the left internal jugular catheter was incorrectly positioned – a deviation not minor, but potentially fatal. When a jugular vein is cut or ruptured, most immediate symptom would be severe bleeding and is in medical domain that it would result in low blood pressure, difficulty in breathing and can sometimes lead to coronary thrombus. The report opines that Hemopneumothorax is well known complication of internal jugular vein catheter insertion. Permacath is necessary for all CKD patients and left lJC was not in proper position. Therefore, there is a rupture in the jugular vein."
Meanwhile, the Victoria Hospital in its report dated 07.12.2024 mentioned, "Hemopneumothorax is well known complication of internal jugular vein catheter insertion. Permacath is necessary for all CKD patients who are undergoing dialysis photocopy of chest X-ray provided in the documents showed that Left IJC was IJC was not in proper position. (This can be confirmed by Radiologist)"
Referring to this report, the HC bench observed, "The report confirms that the catheter caused Hemopneumothorax, a complication known, but avoidable with proper care."
The High Court bench also relied on Supreme Court order in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, where the Apex Court laid down guidelines to prosecute medical professionals. "The Apex Court delineates the delicate balance between holding medical professionals accountable and shielding them from vexatious prosecution," the HC bench observed at this outset.
It also relied on Supreme Court orders in the case of Martin F.D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfawq, and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda laying down guidelines to prosecute a doctor and highlighting the principles of consent.
Finally, allowing the plea, the HC bench directed the jurisdictional police to register a First Information Repory based on the petitioner's complaint. "Mandamus issues to the jurisdictional police – respondent No.4 to register a First Information Report on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint and proceed further in accordance with law, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order," it ordered.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/karnataka-hc-292635.pdf
Also Read: FIR against Cuttack doctor after toddler dies post-hernia surgery
