DR ANIL KUMAR R vs KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 25779 OF 2026 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
DR. ANIL KUMAR R
S/O MR. B. RUDRAMUSETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
CONSULTANT DIABETOLOGIST AND PHYSICIAN,
KMC REGISTRATION NO. 26302,
TH
R/AT NO. 491/40/2, 38 CROSS,
ST TH
1 MAIN ROAD, 8 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIPADA VENKATA JOGA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BASAVA BHAVANA,
NEAR HIGH GROUNDS,
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. SRI. MUNIRATHNAM REDDY
S/O. LATE T. VENKATARAMA REDDY,
BATHANAPALLI VILLAGE,
MAMADUGU POST,
GANGAVARAM MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH – 533 284.
3. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA
W/O. LATE T. VENKATARAMA REDDY,
BATHANAPALLI VILLAGE,
MAMADUGU POST,
Digitally
signed by
YASHODA K L
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
GANGAVARAM MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH – 533 284.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.05.2026 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION IN COMPLAINT No. SC/29/CC/167/2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND DECLARE THAT THE COMMISSION COMMITTED AN
ERROR IN RELYING UPON THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
ORDER DESPITE ITS OPERATION HAVING BEEN STAYED BY THIS
HONBLE COURT ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a
memo for producing documents today in Court which is taken
on record.
3. This petition is filed seeking to assail the judgment
dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
1
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru , whereby the
complaint filed before the State Commission by the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 herein was partly allowed holding one Deepak
Hospital and the petitioner herein, guilty of medical negligence.
The two opposite parties, namely, Deepak Hospital and the
petitioner herein, were held jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%
and other directions were also made.
4. It appears that during the pendency of the
aforesaid complaint case before the State Commission, which,
as per the first page of the certified copy of the order of the
judgment of the State Commission, reflects the date of filing of
the complaint case as 13.07.2016.
5. In the memo filed today, is a copy of an interim
order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.38473/2025 (Dr.Anil Kumar.R v. Karnataka Medical
Council and others). In that writ petition, the interim order is as
follows:
“This petition is listed at the instance of Dr.
S.V.Joga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
1
State Commission
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
and the learned counsel pleads for an immediate
interim order asserting that although the decision of
the Karnataka Medical Council [KMC] [the first
respondent, and the decision is to delete the
petitioner’s name from the Medical Practitioner’s
Register] is dated 15.11.2025, it would be effective
from 30.01.2026 in view of the Communication
dated 01.12.2025. The learned counsel also submits
that the petitioner, apart from the notice issued by
this Court returnable by 21.01.2026 to the KMC and
the other respondents, has delivered intimation of
the petition to the first respondent.
In the light of the afore and because notice
issued to respondent Nos.2 to 7, including the
complainant, was returnable by 21.01.2026 but is
not yet returned, the learned counsel who is called
upon to accept notice to the first respondent is
absent, the petitioner's request for an interim order
is being considered.
Prima facie, this Court opines that the decision
to delete the petitioner's name from the Register is
based on suspicion that there is manipulation of
certain case sheets and whether a decision based on
suspicion could be justified is a matter that needs to
be examined. The petitioner's case is that there is
no approximate link between the treatment
administered by the petitioner and the patient's
deteriorating condition. This Court has also
considered Dr.S.V.Joga Rao’s submissions that
communications have already been addressed to
different authorities by the first respondent for
initiation of action against the petitioner.
As such, the interim order is granted as
prayed for to be in force until the next date of
hearing directing the office to verify the status of
service of notice from the website of the postal
department and place the same on record for just
orders.
The office is directed to re-list this petition on
25.02.2026.”
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
6. It appears that as per the direction of the Court, the
2
order of the Karnataka Medical Council directing deletion of the
petitioner's name from the Medical Practitioner’s Register dated
15.11.2025 has been stayed. The order of the KMC dated
15.11.2025 is also on record appended to the memo, whereby
the name of the petitioner was directed to be deleted from the
registry of the KMC for a period of six months.
7. When queried, the counsel for the petitioner has
categorically stated that the interim order dated 29.01.2026
passed in the writ petition was not brought to the notice of the
State Commission.
8. However, the proceedings before the KMC and the
order dated 15.11.2025 was brought to the notice of the State
Commission. A perusal of the judgment of the State
Commission reveals that the points for consideration were as
follows:
i. Whether the deceased was a consumer as defined
U/s.2(1)(d) of CPA 1986 ?
ii. Whether the Complainants are able to
demonstrate medical negligence on the part of
OPs.1 & 2?
2
KMC
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
iii. Whether the Complainants are entitle to claim
compensation of Rs.50 lakhs ?
iv. What order?
9. The State Commission has passed the order
impugned and has returned its finding on the aforesaid point
No.2 largely based on the order of the KMC dated 15.11.2025.
No appeal/second appeal is filed by the petitioner under Section
30 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 against the
order of the KMC. It appears that the petitioner, against whom
serious action has been taken by the KMC, which is a
specialized body to look into the aspects of professional or
ethical misconduct by a registered medical practitioner or
professional, has chosen to challenge the order of the KMC in
the Writ Petition of 2025 but was not advised to file an appeal
before the statutory authorities.
10. Admittedly, the judgment passed by the State
Commission is appealable before the National Consumer
3
Disputes Redressal Commission , under the Consumer
Protection Act. It is for the petitioner, if he is so advised, to
approach the National Commission in an appeal for availing
3
National Commission
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60133-DB
WP No. 25779 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010568622026
appropriate remedy. Given the conduct of the petitioner of not
informing the State Commission of the writ petition filed by him
and the interim order obtained, which is actually concealment
of facts, and not complying with the directions of the State
Commission for payment of any compensation to the aggrieved
complainant, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article
dismiss
226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, this
writ petition.
11. It is made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion as to the merits of the case of the petitioner. It shall be
open for the petitioner to raise all his pleas before the
appropriate forum, if so advised, in accordance with law.
SD/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
SD/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE
GJM/KSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5