Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka High Court Directs FIR for Medical Negligence Against Fortis, GM Hospital: Bengaluru – In a significant ruling emphasizing the sanctity of patient care and the right to dignity, the Karnataka High Court has directed the immediate registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for medical negligence against doctors from GM Hospital and Fortis Hospital. The directive comes after allegations of botched surgeries performed on a patient without proper consent, ultimately leading to his death.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while issuing the order, delivered a strong observation on medical negligence: “When the sanctity of medical care is breached by negligence, it is not merely a lapse of procedure, but a desecration of dignity inherent in human life. 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.”
The case was brought before the High Court by Vikas Dev, who alleged gross negligence in the treatment of his father. According to Dev, his father was initially admitted to Bengaluru-based GM Hospital, where the first accused doctor obtained consent for inserting a hemodialysis catheter on the right side of the body. However, the procedure was allegedly performed on the left side instead.
As his father’s condition deteriorated, he was transferred to Fortis Hospital. There, a second accused doctor performed another surgery, reportedly without obtaining proper consent, during which the father tragically died of cardiac arrest.
Following his father’s demise, Vikas Dev filed a police complaint on June 18, 2024. However, the police categorized the complaint as non-cognizable, advising him to approach the Karnataka Medical Council. Dev then escalated the matter to senior police officials, but no action was taken, leaving him to seek redress through the High Court.
During the High Court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the doctors’ actions amounted to gross negligence. It was contended that the incorrect insertion of the catheter led to the blockage of the jugular vein and disruption of blood flow. The counsel clarified that the core issue was not the father’s pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), but rather the alleged negligence during the medical procedures. A preliminary report from Victoria Hospital, reportedly implicating the doctor responsible for the catheter insertion, was also presented to the Court.
Conversely, the government pleader argued that the allegations did not meet the threshold for criminal negligence, suggesting it was a matter more suited for the Karnataka Medical Council under the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961. The Court was informed that a complaint had already been lodged with the Medical Council, and notices had been issued to both implicated doctors.
After reviewing the submissions, the High Court focused on the crucial element of consent. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioner’s consent was not obtained for altering the type or location of the surgery. The Court specifically highlighted several alleged discrepancies:
The catheter was inserted on the wrong side without the petitioner’s consent.
A Hemodialysis (H.D.) Catheter was inserted when permission/consent was obtained for a Perma Catheter.
The surgery was performed by a duty doctor instead of the surgeon.
The doctors allegedly failed to take corrective measures despite the patient’s deteriorating condition.
Furthermore, the Court considered a medical committee report formed by the State and the hospital, which indicated that the catheter insertion led to Hemopneumothorax—a known complication that could have been avoided with appropriate care.
With these observations, the High Court allowed Vikas Dev’s petition, paving the way for a formal criminal investigation into the alleged medical negligence.
Advocate Sameer Sharma represented the petitioner in this critical case. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the rigorous standards of consent and care expected from medical professionals and the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability when those standards are allegedly breached.
