Karnataka HC Quashes Doctor’s Registration Suspension Over Patient’s Death, Citing Council’s Failure To Explain Its Negligence Finding

The petitioner, a General Surgeon, performed a laparoscopic sterilisation procedure on Smt. Lakshmi on 16 September 2014.

After she suffered complications, she was shifted to another hospital and died that day; her husband subsequently complained to the police

Following police correspondence, the Karnataka Medical Council initiated an inquiry and, by order dated 5 March 2022, suspended the petitioner’s registration.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227, contending, among other things, that it did not explain the alleged negligence or identify procedural lapses

The Council opposed the petition, asserting that it had followed natural justice and that an alternative appellate remedy was available

1. Whether the Council’s order suspending the petitioner’s registration was legally sustainable when it did not explain how the petitioner’s conduct constituted medical negligence or identify the lapses said to have caused the patient’s death

2. Whether the Court should decline to consider the petition on the ground that an alternative appellate remedy was available

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

The Court’s reasoning applied the requirement that an order carrying serious consequences for a professional must disclose the basis for its findings and demonstrate application of mind; a finding of medical negligence cannot rest on a bare conclusion without identifying the conduct constituting negligence and its connection to the harm

The Court also considered the principles in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, cited by the petitioner, including that medical negligence must be assessed by reference to the standard of an ordinarily competent practitioner and that an error of judgment or adverse outcome alone does not establish negligence

The Court examined the Council’s order and found that it did not explain how the evidence established medical negligence or specify what the petitioner had done, or failed to do, that caused the patient’s death.

Nor did the order discuss the nature of the inquiry conducted

Given the serious consequence of suspending a doctor’s registration, the Council was required to give a reasoned decision and exercise greater care; the Court found the order showed no adequate application of mind

Although an alternative remedy was asserted, the Court proceeded to the merits because the petition had been pending since 2022 and an interim order had continued for four years

It declined to remand the matter, observing that doing so more than ten years after the patient’s death would serve no purpose

It set aside the order dated 5 March 2022 in Case No. KMC.ENQ/02/2016, allowed the writ petition, and closed any pending interlocutory applications