High Court Decision on Police Notices
The Karnataka High Court has recently nullified a series of notices issued by the police to Cloudnine Hospital and one of its senior consultants. The notices were related to an inquiry into a patient’s death following a surgery. The court emphasized that such an inquiry should not transform into a criminal investigation unless a first information report (FIR) is filed, as outlined in the case Dr Vinuta B v State of Karnataka.
Judicial Clarification by Justice M Nagaprasanna
Justice M Nagaprasanna presided over the case, affirming that any criminal investigation should not hinder the operations of a healthcare facility. He clarified the distinction between an inquiry following an unnatural death report (UDR) and an investigation that ensues post the registration of a cognizable offence. He stated, “The police cannot, under the guise of conducting an inquest, embark upon a roving and fishing enquiry or assume powers that become available only after an FIR sets the criminal law in motion, a caveat it would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.”
Background of the Case
The issue arose when a 29-year-old patient died during a hysteroscopic polypectomy surgery in May 2026. In accordance with procedure, Cloudnine Hospital filed a UDR with the local police. However, the police action quickly escalated, resulting in six notices demanding extensive evidence, including CCTV footage, patient records, and surgical machinery. The police also summoned nearly 10 female staff members to provide testimonies. The hospital contended that this inquiry had become an intrusive investigation and sought relief from the High Court after receiving no response to their formal representation to the authorities.
Court’s Remarks on Police Actions
The court observed that Cloudnine Hospital had been cooperative with the police inquiry. It criticized the manner in which the police demanded equipment and machinery, which could have disrupted the hospital’s operations. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “They seek not merely records or documents but virtually the very machinery and equipment employed in the hospital. Compliance in the manner demanded would have had the inevitable consequence of paralysing the functioning of the hospital itself, thereby affecting not merely the petitioners but countless patients dependent upon the institution for medical care.”
Further Proceedings
The court also took note that the complainant had approached the Karnataka Medical Council to ascertain the hospital’s liability. In quashing the six police notices, the court reiterated that a UDR inquiry aims to understand the circumstances of an unnatural death, not to permit an unrestricted investigation or disrupt hospital operations. Justice Nagaprasanna concluded, “An enquiry under a UDR is intended to ascertain the circumstances surrounding an unnatural death. It is not a licence for an unrestricted fishing expedition nor does it confer upon the investigating agency an unfettered authority to summon every individual remotely associated with the treatment or to repeatedly interfere with the functioning of a hospital.”
Advocate KM Archana represented Cloudnine Hospital and its consultant, while State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha appeared for the State. Advocate BS Prasad represented the deceased’s father.
