DR CAPT K R SRINIVASAN vs KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 5944 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR. CAPT. K.R. SRINIVASAN
S/O K.V.RAMANATHA
AGED 53 YEARS,
WORKING AT GENERAL HOSPITAL,
H.D.KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT
PIN - 571 125
R/AT NO.3, 80 FEET ROAD, 3RD STAGE,
B BLOCK, VIJAYNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 017.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)










AND:

1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
NO.16/6, 2ND FLOOR,
MILLER TANK BED AREA,
VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.

2. SHRI RAJU
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.457, RAMABAI NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 008.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK M., ADVOCATE FOR R1

Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

R2 IS SERVED)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.03.2022 IN CASE PASSED BY
THE R1 HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER
The writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer.
"PRAYER
Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prays that
this hon'ble court may be pleased to:-
a Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ
or direction and to quash the impugned order
dated 5/03/2022 in case No.KMC. ENQ/02/2016
passed by the respondent No.1 herein as per
Annexure A to the writ petition.
b) To pass such other order/s as deems fit
by this Hon'ble court in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity."

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022



2. The petitioner is a qualified doctor currently working
as a General Surgeon at H.D.Kote, Mysore District. The
petitioner completed his graduation from Bangalore Medical
College in 1990. After graduation, he joined a private hospital
for about one year. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the Indian
Army as a General Duty Medical Officer in the rank of Captain.
Later, he retired from the Army as a Captain. After retiring
from the Indian Army, the petitioner joined St. John's Medical
College as a Senior Health Officer and worked at the said
Medical College for about one year. Thereafter, the petitioner
joined as a contract Medical Officer in the Department of Health
and Family Welfare, Govt. of Karnataka, during the year 1998.
Initially, the petitioner was posted as Primary Health Centre,
Adagur village, K.R.Nagara Taluk and Mysore District.
Subsequently, the petitioner was selected and appointed as
th
General Duty Medical officer w.e.f 10 July, 2000. The
petitioner while working as General Duty Medical Officer, he
went for higher studies and did his post Graduation Degree in
General Surgery from Mysore Medical College and research
Institute Mysore between 2009 to 2012. On completion of post

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


graduation, the petitioner was posted as General Surgeon at
General Hospital H.D.Kote w.e.f. 25.06.2012 and working in the
said hospital till date. The petitioner after completion of the
M.S.General Surgery, took training in Laproscopic sterilization
procedure conducted by National Health Mission and was
empanelled as Laproscopic Surgeon for carrying out family
planning procedures as per the certificate issued by the
National Rural Health Mission. One patient by name, Smt.
Lakshmi was taken to the operation theatre for conducting
Laproscopic surgery on 16.09.2014. The petitioner after
introducing veres needle and connected the air inflow tube. In
the meantime, the patient developed convulsions and went into
a state of shock. Immediately, the petitioner and anesthetist
together tried to resuscitate the patient and endotracheal
intubations done and patient was revived. Thereafter,
immediately for ventilatory support the patient was shifted to
K.R.Hospital, Mysore and she was attended by the specialized
doctors. The doctors opined that the condition of the patient is
due to anteroseptal myocardial infarction with cardiogenic
shock with pulmonary air embolism. The patient declared as

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


dead at 4.30 p.m. on 16.09.2014 in the medical ICU. The same
was informed to her husband and on 17.09.2014, her husband
lodged a complaint before the Ashokapuram Police, Mysore.
Pursuant to the complaint lodged by husband of the deceased,
the dead body was sent for autopsy at MMCRI Forensic
Medicine Department. After conducting the postmortem the
body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The PM
report says the reason for her death and it says that to
ascertain whether there is any medical negligence an enquiry
may have to be conducted by the police. Thereafter, the SHO of
Ashokapuram Police station, Mysore addressed a letter dated
25.08.2015 to the Medical Council to give death audit report.

3. After receiving the letter, KMC has sent a reply to
the Ashokapuram police stating that the death audit report
cannot be given based on records and a complaint is lodged
either by the complainant or, if the police are willing, a case will
be registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Medical
Registration Act. Pursuant to the said reply, the complaint was
registered in the year 2016. Initially, the case was registered
only against the Medical Superintendent, Government

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


Community Health Centre as per the show cause notice dated
16.12.2016. Thereafter, except for a few hearings, the
petitioner remained absent throughout the proceedings, and an
affidavit was filed on 25.02.2017, and in that also no
allegations were made against the petitioner. The respondents
before the KMC led their evidence, but the complainant did not
cross-examine the witness. The KMC did not take any expert
opinion of the concerned department in this regard, and
however, the order impugned came to be passed. Whereby, the
Karnataka Medical Council suspended the registration of the
petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this
Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that there is no specific complaint against the
petitioner from any source, and that the Karnataka Medical
Council initiated a complaint based on the letter addressed by
the SHO. Thereafter, the complainant did not pursue the
matter. It is submitted that the Karnataka Medical Council has
not followed any procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn the Court's attention to the order passed by the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


Karnataka Medical Council. Learned counsel submits that, in
the said order, paragraphs Nos. 1 to 5 deals with the facts;
paragraph No. 6 refers to the postmortem certificate; and
paragraph No. 7 concludes that there is medical negligence on
the part of the petitioner, which has caused the death of the
deceased. Hence, they passed the order. It is submitted that,
when such an order has its own consequences, they ought to
have recorded the reasons for the same. It is submitted that
they have not followed any procedure known to law. He relied
on paragraph Nos. 24, 25, 32, and 48 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JACOB MATHEW VS. STATE
OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER , which read as under:
"24. The classical statement of law in Bolam case
[(1957) 1 WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER 118 (QBD)]
has been widely accepted as decisive of the
standard of care required both of professional men
generally and medical practitioners in particular.
It has been invariably cited with approval before
the courts in India and applied as a touchstone to
test the pleas of medical negligence. In tort, it is
enough for the defendant to show that the
standard of care and the skill attained was that of
the ordinary competent medical practitioner
exercising an ordinary degree of professional skill.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


The fact that a defendant charged with negligence
acted in accord with the general and approved
practice is enough to clear him of the charge. Two
things are pertinent to be noted. Firstly, the
standard of care, when assessing the practice as
adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge
available at the time (of the incident), and not at
the date of trial. Secondly, when the charge of
negligence arises out of failure to use some
particular equipment, the charge would fail if the
equipment was not generally available at that
point of time on which it is suggested as should
have been used.
25. A mere deviation from normal
professional practice is not necessarily evidence of
negligence. Let it also be noted that a mere
accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an
error of judgment on the part of a professional is
not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in
emergency and higher the complication, more are
the chances of error of judgment. At times, the
professional is confronted with making a choice
between the devil and the deep sea and he has to
choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is
often called upon to adopt a procedure which
involves higher element of risk, but which he
honestly believes as providing greater chances of
success for the patient rather than a procedure
involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


Which course is more appropriate to follow, would
depend on the facts and circumstances of a given
case. The usual practice prevalent nowadays is to
obtain the consent of the patient or of the person
in-charge of the patient if the patient is not in a
position to give consent before adopting a given
procedure. So long as it can be found that the
procedure which was in fact adopted was one
which was acceptable to medical science as on
that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held
negligent merely because he chose to follow one
procedure and not another and the result was a
failure.
32. At least three weighty considerations can
be pointed out which any forum trying the issue of
medical negligence in any jurisdiction must keep
in mind. These are: (i) that legal and disciplinary
procedures should be properly founded on firm,
moral and scientific grounds; (ii) that patients will
be better served if the real causes of harm are
properly identified and appropriately acted upon;
and (iii) that many incidents involve a contribution
from more than one person, and the tendency is to
blame the last identifiable element in the chain of
causation, the person holding the “smoking gun”.
48. We sum up our conclusions as under:
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused
by omission to do something which a reasonable

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


man guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs
would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. The definition of
negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal &
Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to
hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes
actionable on account of injury resulting from the
act or omission amounting to negligence
attributable to the person sued. The essential
components of negligence are three: “duty”,
“breach” and “resulting damage”.
(2) Negligence in the context of the medical
profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a
difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the
part of a professional, in particular a doctor,
additional considerations apply. A case of
occupational negligence is different from one of
professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an
error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of
negligence on the part of a medical professional.
So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable
to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be
held liable for negligence merely because a better
alternative course or method of treatment was
also available or simply because a more skilled
doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort
to that practice or procedure which the accused
followed. When it comes to the failure of taking

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


precautions, what has to be seen is whether those
precautions were taken which the ordinary
experience of men has found to be sufficient; a
failure to use special or extraordinary precautions
which might have prevented the particular
happening cannot be the standard for judging the
alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care,
while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged
in the light of knowledge available at the time of
the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly,
when the charge of negligence arises out of failure
to use some particular equipment, the charge
would fail if the equipment was not generally
available at that particular time (that is, the time
of the incident) at which it is suggested it should
have been used.
(3) A professional may be held liable for
negligence on one of the two findings: either he
was not possessed of the requisite skill which he
professed to have possessed, or, he did not
exercise, with reasonable competence in the given
case, the skill which he did possess. The standard
to be applied for judging, whether the person
charged has been negligent or not, would be that
of an ordinary competent person exercising
ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible
for every professional to possess the highest level
of expertise or skills in that branch which he
practices. A highly skilled professional may be

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be
made the basis or the yardstick for judging the
performance of the professional proceeded against
on indictment of negligence.
(4) The test for determining medical
negligence as laid down in Bolam case [(1957) 1
WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER 118 (QBD)] , WLR at p.
586 [ [Ed.: Also at All ER p. 121 D-F and set out in
para 19, p. 19 herein.]] holds good in its
applicability in India.
(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence
differs in civil and criminal law. What may be
negligence in civil law may not necessarily be
negligence in criminal law. For negligence to
amount to an offence, the element of mens rea
must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to
criminal negligence, the degree of negligence
should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high
degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a
higher degree may provide a ground for action in
civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution.
(6) The word “gross” has not been used in
Section 304-A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal
law negligence or recklessness, to be so held,
must be of such a high degree as to be “gross”.
The expression “rash or negligent act” as
occurring in Section 304-A IPC has to be read as
qualified by the word “grossly”.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


(7) To prosecute a medical professional for
negligence under criminal law it must be shown
that the accused did something or failed to do
something which in the given facts and
circumstances no medical professional in his
ordinary senses and prudence would have done or
failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused
doctor should be of such a nature that the injury
which resulted was most likely imminent.
(8) Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of
evidence and operates in the domain of civil law,
specially in cases of torts and helps in determining
the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence.
It cannot be pressed in service for determining per
se the liability for negligence within the domain of
criminal law. Res ipsa loquitur has, if at all, a
limited application in trial on a charge of criminal
"
negligence.



5. Relying on this, it is submitted that the order
passed by the Karnataka Medical Council is bereft of reasons
and needs to be set aside, as no such procedure is followed by
the Karnataka Medical Council.

6. Though notice is served on respondent No.2, no
vakalath is filed on his behalf.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022



7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1- Karnataka Medical Council submits that, based on the
postmortem report, the police have lodged a complaint. On that
basis, they have initiated the inquiry. They have followed the
principles of natural justice, issued notice to the concerned
party, and the complainant has also filed an affidavit. However,
he does not dispute the fact that the complainant had not
pursued the matter. It is submitted that although this is not
reflected in the order, considering the materials available, the
Karnataka Medical Council has passed the order. It is submitted
that the order is a well considered one and requires no
interference in the hands of this Court. It is further submitted
that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner to
approach the appellate authority i.e., the Medical Council of
India, and that the present writ petition is not maintainable as
there is a effective alternative remedy.

8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record. The submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent is that the writ petition is not
maintainable. This case is filed in the year 2022, the coordinate

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


Bench of this Court had granted an interim order. That interim
order is continuing from the last 4 years. In those
circumstances, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to
consider the availability of an alternative remedy, whether this
writ petition is maintainable or not. Hence, this Court is inclined
to consider the matter on the merits. Based on the police
complaint, the Karnataka Medical Council has initiated the
proceedings. This Court has perused the order. In the order,
absolutely there is no mention about how this constitutes
medical negligence. What are the lapses on the part of the
petitioner that resulted in the death of the deceased. The
Karnataka Medical Council has not even discussed anything
with regard to the nature of the inquiry that was conducted by
them. The patient died in the year 2014. The complaint was
raised in the year 2016, and finally an order was passed in the
year 2022. It appears that there was no application of mind
while passing the order, and an order of this nature, having
severe consequences of canceling the registration of a medical
practitioner, the Medical Council ought to have been more
careful while passing an order. By setting aside this order and

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55920
WP No. 5944 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010131312022


sending it back to the Karnataka Medical Council, at this point
of time, after more than 10 years, does not serve any purpose
and this Court does not find any reasons to remand the matter.
In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER

i. The order dated 05.03.2022 in case
No.KMC.ENQ/02/2016 passed by respondent
No.1 is set aside.

ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

iii. Pending IAs if any in this petition shall stand
closed.


SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE


BH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3