Doctors from Fortis and GM Hospitals accused of conducting surgeries without proper consent; HC cites breach of medical ethics and patient dignity
Bengaluru: In a significant development in a case of alleged medical negligence, the Karnataka High Court has directed the jurisdictional police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against two doctors attached to Fortis Hospital and GM Hospitals in Bengaluru. The directive comes after a petition by the deceased patient’s son, who alleged that his father died following surgeries conducted without proper consent.
The High Court bench, led by Justice M Nagaprasanna, observed that the allegations merited investigation under criminal law, stating, “When the sanctity of medical care is breached by alleged negligence, it is not merely a lapse of procedure, but a desecration of the dignity inherent in human life.”
Alleged Procedural and Ethical Violations
The petitioner claimed that while consent was obtained at GM Hospital for inserting a catheter on the right side, the procedure was incorrectly carried out on the left side. As his father’s condition worsened, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, where another surgery was allegedly performed without consent, ultimately resulting in the patient’s death from cardiac arrest.
A preliminary inquiry report from Victoria Hospital supported the petitioner’s claims, stating that the catheter had been incorrectly positioned in the left internal jugular vein, leading to hemopneumothorax—a potentially fatal complication. The report highlighted a rupture in the jugular vein and observed that the catheter placement was a “deviation not minor, but potentially fatal.”
The High Court also referred to a post facto report from a medical committee and cited landmark Supreme Court judgments—including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda—which outline legal standards for prosecuting medical professionals and emphasize the necessity of informed consent.
Police and Administrative Inaction
The petitioner’s initial complaint had been dismissed by the jurisdictional police, who classified the matter as non-cognizable and advised taking it up with the Karnataka Medical Council. Allegations were also made against senior police officers, including the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, for not acting on the complaint.
However, the High Court ruled that the case could not be summarily closed without investigation. It held that the petitioner should not be left “remediless” in a case involving loss of life under suspicious medical circumstances.
Court’s Final Order
Directing the jurisdictional police (Respondent No. 4) to act, the bench ordered: “Mandamus issues to the jurisdictional police to register a First Information Report on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint and proceed further in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
The court emphasized the need for a thorough probe into the alleged violations, signaling that lapses in medical practice—especially those involving consent and life-threatening consequences—cannot be ignored.
