Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna)

Order Date: 10 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Dr. Vinuta B (Senior Consultant, Obstetrics & Gynaecology) and M/s. Kids Clinic India Limited (operator of Cloudnine Hospital). Respondents – State of Karnataka (Home Affairs, Health & Family Welfare), Director General & IG Police, Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and Police Sub‑Inspector (investigating officer).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution (read with Section 528 of the BNSS) seeking quash of eight police notices (numbers KKPS/UDR/33/2026 dated 20‑05‑2026, 21‑05‑2026, 04‑06‑2026, 19‑06‑2026, 20‑06‑2026, and three notices dated 23‑06‑2026 issued under Section 94 & 179 BNSS) and a mandamus directing procedural safeguards per Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.
  • Background: On 20‑May‑2026 a 29‑year‑old patient, Smt. Spoorthi Chithriki, underwent a hysteroscopic polypectomy at Cloudnine Hospital. An intra‑operative complication led to cardiac arrest; despite resuscitation, the patient was shifted to Manipal Hospital where she later died. The hospital promptly reported the death, resulting in an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) under Section 194(3)(iv) BNSS. The police issued a series of notices demanding inpatient records, CCTV footage, the complete unedited surgical video, OT equipment, and even the anaesthesia machine itself. The hospital complied with each notice, furnishing 36 sheets of records, a 64 GB pen‑drive of CCTV footage, and a 36‑minute‑22‑second unedited video on 07‑06‑2026, among other documents.
  • Petitioners’ Contentions: Repeated notices, especially those under Section 94 and Section 179, amounted to harassment and exceeded the limited statutory purpose of a Section 194 BNSS inquiry. They invoked Jacob Mathew and subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements (e.g., Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, Amit Kumar v. Union of India) emphasizing that an inquiry under Section 174/194 is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and cannot be transformed into a full‑blown criminal investigation.
  • State’s Position: The State Public Prosecutor argued that the death required thorough investigation to rule out medical negligence and that the police were merely seeking material necessary for that purpose.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court held that the statutory framework of Section 194 BNSS (mirroring Section 174 CrPC) limits police powers to determining the cause of death. The repeated demands for equipment, extensive logs, and multiple appearances of staff members went beyond this limited scope and amounted to an abuse of process. The Court noted that the Karnataka Medical Council, a statutory disciplinary body, is the appropriate forum for professional‑conduct inquiries, and the police should not act as its arm.
  • Directions Issued:

1. All notices dated 20‑05‑2026, 21‑05‑2026, 04‑06‑2026, 19‑06‑2026, 20‑06‑2026, and the three notices of 23‑06‑2026 are quashed.

2. All further proceedings in the UDR concerning the petitioners’ hospital are stayed pending the next hearing.

3. The Karnataka Medical Council may continue its independent inquiry without impediment.

4. The hospital must facilitate inspection of the OT machine and related instruments by a qualified technician appointed by the equipment manufacturer; the inspection must be scheduled with three‑day notice to the police.

5. Costs of the writ petition are awarded to the petitioners.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed all police notices issued in connection with the UDR, stayed further police action against the hospital, and affirmed the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Medical Council to pursue any disciplinary matters. The order also mandated equipment inspection by a manufacturer’s technician and awarded costs to the petitioners.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Medical Regulation