Karnataka HC quashes notices issued by police against Cloudnine Hospital after surgery resulted in death

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a series of police notices issued to Cloudnine Hospital and its senior consultant, ruling that an inquiry into a patient's death cannot become a criminal investigation without the registration of a first information report (FIR) [Dr Vinuta B v State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that criminal investigation cannot be permitted to disable a functioning healthcare institution.

The Court distinguished between an inquiry in an unnatural death report (UDR) and that of investigation after the registration of a cognizable offence.

"The police cannot, under the guise of conducting an inquest, embark upon a roving and fishing enquiry or assume powers that become available only after an FIR sets the criminal law in motion, a caveat it would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case."

A 29-year-old patient passed away while she was undergoing a hysteroscopic polypectomy surgery in May 2026. Following procedure, the hospital registered a UDR with the jurisdictional police.

Police investigation escalated quickly with 6 notices issued on various dated demanding CCTV footage, patient records, surgical machinery and calling nearly 10 women members of the staff to the police station to record evidence. The hospital issued a representation to the authorities stating that the inquiry had turned into an investigative intrusion. When they did not receive any response to their representation, they approached the High Court.

The Court found that the hospital had complied with the police in its investigation and said that the manner in which machinery and equipment were demanded as evidence would obstruct the functioning of the hospital.

"They seek not merely records or documents but virtually the very machinery and equipment employed in the hospital. Compliance in the manner demanded would have had the inevitable consequence of paralysing the functioning of the hospital itself, thereby affecting not merely the petitioners but countless patients dependent upon the institution for medical care."

It also noted that the complainant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Medical Council, which would determine the liability of the hospital.

Quashing the 6 police notices, the Court said,

"An enquiry under a UDR is intended to ascertain the circumstances surrounding an unnatural death. It is not a licence for an unrestricted fishing expedition nor does it confer upon the investigating agency an unfettered authority to summon every individual remotely associated with the treatment or to repeatedly interfere with the functioning of a hospital."

Advocate KM Archana appeared for the hospital and its consultant.

State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha appeared for the State.

Advocate BS Prasad appeared for the father of the deceased.

[Read Order]