'Police Can't Be Doctoring': Karnataka High Court Slams State Over Notices To Women Hospital Staff In Unnatural Death Case, Stays Probe

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [ July 7] strongly reprimand the police for allegedly overstepping their authority while investigation into the death of a patient at Cloudnine Hospital, and stayed all proceedings against the hospital and its staff.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by Dr. Vinuta B. and M/s. Kids Clinic India Limited (operating Cloudnine Hospital), questioned the police for issuing multiple notices to the hospital's staff, including 10 women staff, under Section 179 BNSS [Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses].

When the matter was taken, the court at the outset orally said, “…The case stems from a tragic incident on May 20, 2026, where a patient undergoing a polypectomy procedure experienced a drop in pulse and was subsequently shifted to Manipal Hospital, where she passed away…”.

While the Court acknowledged the 'unfortunate incident' of the death of a patient, it vehemently objected to the police's approach to the UDR (Unnatural Death Report) investigation remarking that "police should not enter into doctoring”.

After hearing the parties, the Court in its order dictated:

“…This unfortunate incident should not get linked to every doctor, bringing them to the dragnet of crime…. What the police is wanting to investigate is on UDR (Unnatural Death Report) that is to be filed. In furtherance of UDR, it transpires that ten women staff of Cloudnine hospital have been issued Section 179 notices to appear before police station. It is not understandable as to why women staff of the Cloudnine Hospital are directed to appear before police for conclusion and closure of UDR…. Notwithstanding this, it appears that the police is now wanting to show undue interest in case by issuing notices to all women staff of Cloudnine Hospital. Learned SPP to secure instructions as to why and how such notices have emanated from the police to the hospital staff."

The petitioners had primarily assailed the complainant's demand for specific 'anaesthesia log' and 'patient monitor log', which the petitioners argued was 'transient data' which could not be preserved after a limited timeline. The petitioners, through their counsel Archana K.M., submitted that all other documents have been provided to the police as directed by the court on July 1.

When the matter was taken up yesterday, Advocate Archana K.M appearing for the petitioners referred to Supreme Court's judgment in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), wherein it was observed that professionals shouldn't be criminalized simply because a patient did not respond favourably to treatment.

At this stage, the court asked the State:

"Why have you issued Section 179 notices [In UDR] to nursing care women? Impact of harassment is not only on them, it is on other patients too... they are human beings…Is this FIR or UDR?…in a case of this nature, police can't decipher what treatment is given or not…medical council is the best person to constitute a board and see… if there is medical negligence, pin them down … If the medical board will assess whether this machine records data or not, can the police assess that? Let the medical board decide”.

When the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) informed that the police only sought the data to verify the treatment, upon receiving a direction from the Medical Board to collect the data, the Court questioned the necessity of using police notices to compel doctors to produce technical medical records.

The Court was also "shocked" to note that the Karnataka Medical Council had allegedly directed the police to secure the medical records from the hospital, instead of seeking them independently.

“…. Contemporaneously, it transpires the complainant has approached the Karnataka Medical Council after which the medical council is said to have directed the police to secure documents. It is rather shocking that the medical council is now wanting to use the police to secure the documents while the doctors are obliged to reply to the notices issued by the medical council as a mandate of statute," the court noted in its order further.

The petitioners said that the death of the patient occurred on 20.05.2026 whereas the notice was issued to the hospital on 19.06.2026. The Anaesthesia machine when its restarted, starts recording anew and the Patient Monitor Machine has only storage preservation to an extent of 120 hours, the counsel added, underscoring that the hospital has not erased any data on its own.

At this point, SPP pressed for preserving the Echo Cardio Gram Machine Data (ECG), stating that the hospital has refused to ECG recordings saying it's not available.

“…ECG data is available… that you [Hospital] can't deny. if the patient is collapsing, ECG data is your clear indicator… it is not transient data…you have an ECG machine…. is the running heart rate recorded by the monitor at the time of surgery or separate ECG you took…Only doctor will know”, the court orally said.

However the petitioners claimed that it was a 'running ECG' monitored during the surgery which could not record data. However, the court remarked that unless it's a 'portable' ECG, the data would be permanently stored.

“…Check with the ECG data and file an affidavit that the same monitor operates for ECG also and no separate ECG machine is used. We will get it checked with the medical board," Justice Nagaprasanna directed in the order accordingly.

At this juncture, the SPP informed the court that they went with a technician earlier who was told the data was not available. The Court, noting the same, however, directed the hospital to permit inspection of the instrument by a technician from the very company that installed the machine.

The court listed the matter on July 14. 

Case No:  Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s. Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Konankunte Police Station

Case No: WP 19927/2026