High Court Intervenes in Alleged Withholding of Patient’s Body
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed directions issued by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC) that required the personal appearance of doctors and hospital directors in a case involving allegations that a patient’s body was withheld over unpaid dues. The matter has sparked legal and ethical debate over the scope of the Commission’s powers.
Suo Motu Action by Human Rights Commission
The controversy began after media reports alleged that a private hospital demanded substantial payment before releasing the body of a deceased patient. Acting on the reports, 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 in Mohali and Patiala.
Bench Grants Interim Relief
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed an interim order staying the Commission’s directions that mandated personal appearances. The Court directed instead that affidavits supported by relevant documents be filed. The bench also indicated it would examine whether the suo motu cognizance had been validly taken without circulation among other Commission members.
Media Reports and Payment Dispute
According to The Indian Express, initial reports claimed that around Rs 7.21 lakh was demanded before the body was released, a figure later amplified on social media to Rs 35 lakh. The Commission subsequently expanded the scope of its inquiry, seeking details about billing practices and hospital documentation.
Summons and Expanded Inquiry
The PSHRC summoned the treating doctor and directors of hospitals in Mohali and Patiala, directing them to appear in person. It also ordered the Civil Surgeon, SAS Nagar, and the Deputy Commissioner to submit detailed inquiry reports. A four-member medical board was constituted to review medical records, treatment protocols, and the circumstances surrounding the patient’s death.
Public Remarks Draw Criticism
The proceedings took a controversial turn when the Commission member publicly commented on the case through interviews and podcasts, stating that FIRs would be registered and remarking that “heavens will not fall” if the doctor appeared before the Commission. Proceedings were reportedly shared on private social media accounts, drawing criticism from hospital representatives.
Hospitals Deny Human Rights Violation
Senior Advocate AS Rai, representing one of the hospitals, argued before the High Court that the Civil Surgeon’s report found the dispute to be financial rather than medical negligence. He submitted that a board of four doctors had found no lapse in treatment or in the decision to shift the patient to Max Hospital. It was further contended that the patient’s family had requested retention of the body for 12 hours and that CCTV footage showed no coercion in relation to payment.
Next Hearing on February 17
Taking note of these submissions, the High Court stayed all PSHRC directions requiring personal appearances and instructed the filing of affidavits with supporting records. The bench also urged the Commission not to precipitate proceedings in the meantime. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 17, where the Court will examine the validity and scope of the Commission’s actions.
