Probes, however crucial, shouldn’t hit hospital functioning: Karnataka court

Hospital seeks cancellation of the police notices

Spoorthi Chithriki was undergoing a hysteroscopic polypectomy surgery, during which an unforeseen intra-operative complication is stated to have arisen, and she died in the operation theatre.

The hospital informed the police of the death. Subsequently, they issued five notices to the hospital seeking various information about procedures carried out on the woman and other technical information related to the machines used. The hospital said it provided all necessary information in reply to the notices.

On May 23, the police issued three more notices—one seeking unedited hysteroscopy surgery video along with physical production of the digital operation theatre equipment, another demanding the machine used in the surgery, and a third summoning Dr Vinuta B and other staff of the hospital for evidence collection.

The doctor and the hospital approached the court challenging the police notices, contending that doctors cannot be subjected to relentless investigative intrusion without material justifying criminal culpability.

Advocate Archana K M, appearing for the hospital, contended that the woman’s husband had already petitioned the Karnataka Medical Council to inquire into the reason for her death and that the hospital would provide the council with all the necessary information.

Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha argued that the doctors did have a responsibility to furnish the required records, since the woman allegedly died due to their medical negligence.

“Police have not harassed the doctors or the staff of the hospital. They are only inquiring into the cause of death to close the case with regard to the unnatural death report,” he submitted.

A crucial distinction blurred

The court noted that section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates inquiries into cases of suicide and other unnatural deaths and the officer in charge is obliged to undertake an enquiry designed to facilitate the ascertainment of the cause and circumstances of death. It is not intended to metamorphose into a full-fledged criminal investigation unless material surfaces warranting the registration of a cognisable offence.

The court further held that matters such as who committed the offence, how and under what circumstances, or who should face prosecution arise only upon the registration of an FIR. It also said that the police appeared to have completely blurred this distinction.

“The repeated issuance of notices, the insistence upon production of voluminous material already furnished, the summoning of several members of the hospital staff, and the demand for production of the very equipment employed in the operation theatre unmistakably indicate that the enquiry has travelled far beyond its legitimate statutory boundaries,” read the order.

“When the petitioners have responded to every notice, furnished every document sought, cooperated throughout the enquiry, and yet continue to be subjected to successive requisitions wholly disproportionate to the object of an enquiry, this court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law,” the order further read.

The court thus held that the current inquiry “would only legitimise an exercise of power that the statute itself does not sanction”.

The court also clarified that its order would not bind, influence or come in the way of the Karnataka Medical Council’s inquiry.