The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against management of a hospital and its doctor over alleged accidental amputation of a 6-month-old infant's little finger before discharge, observing that the four-hour period in which infant was kept in emergency ward after the incident needs investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412]

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said:

"Prima facie, there is no dispute that the baby was admitted in a hospital for some ailment and she was being treated in the hospital and allegedly the nurse was removing the drip administered to the baby as the doctor had advised for discharge of the baby. However, it appears that while removing the drip administered to the baby, the little finger of the baby is chopped off and the baby was kept in emergency ward for four hours.

What exactly transpired in those four hours is the matter which requires to be investigated. If there is negligence on the part of the doctor in not taking care of the child, necessary precautions and following the necessary medical protocol, then, probably it may be case of negligence. In case, the doctors have taken necessary precautions and followed the prescribed medical protocol in such situation, then it may not be case of negligence. This is exactly the matter which requires investigation when it comes to the complaint against the doctor…”, the court said.

It concluded that there must be an objective investigation into the said matter.

"The Police Officer shall also take assistance of the expert on the subject to consider as to whether it was a case of negligence or not and thereafter, shall file appropriate report," the court said.

The court was hearing a plea to quash the FIR and complaint registered against the petitioners at Indiranagar Police Station. The FIR was for offences punishable under Section 125(b) [rash or negligent act that endangers human life or personal safety] BNS.

The petitioner-Doctor and the management of the hospital contended that the registration of the FIR amounted to an abuse of the process.

According to the hospital, the infant was admitted to the hospital for an ailment. She was administered a drip for the ailment, which was later removed by the nurse. However, while doing so, the nurse 'accidentally did something which resulted in amputation of little finger of the baby'.

It was further submitted that the allegation was not made against the specific doctor in the complaint, and the doctor was admittedly not present when the incident occurred. The doctor, being a paediatrician, was not competent to carry out surgery in respect of an amputated finger even if he were available, it was added by the counsel.

The petitioners further submitted that the required surgeon was later secured for conducting the surgery. Hence, the counsel argued that no allegation of negligence could be sustained against the doctor.

Since the respondents had argued that the amputation of the little finger could be attributed to a nurse in the petitioner-hospital, the management responded that it had held an enquiry against the nurse who was subsequently suspended. It was also told by the petitioners that the enquiry in the matter is ongoing.

The respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the nurse had already brought the matter to the notice of the doctor on duty. Even then, the surgery was not performed for four hours according to the respondents. As per their version, during this 4-hour period, the baby was kept under observation without any further treatment except the provision of first aid.

Hence, the respondents contended that the that the inaction on the part of the doctor on duty pertained to not securing the presence of the surgeon. In the alternative, the doctor also not recommending the baby for higher treatment or surgery at a better hospital amounted to negligence, it was added.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Appearances: Advocate Hitesh Gowda B.J. for the petitioners; Nagharish G.S., HCGP, for Respondent No.1; Adv Raksha Keerthana K. for Respondent No.2