Karnataka HC quashes 'retaliatory' case filed by Manipal hospital against doctor who resigned to join another hospital

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an oncologist who was accused of forging a signature on his experience certificate by Manipal Hospital, after he resigned from the said hospital for employment elsewhere [Dr Somashekar SP v State of Karnataka & Anr].

Justice M Nagaprasanna held the case to be one involving institutional rivalry between the doctor's ex-employer and current employer, rather than a genuine criminal case.

"It appears that this departure from Manipal Hospital generated more than mere disappointment. It seems to have sown the seeds of institutional resentment. The resentment got amplified when the staff of Manipal Hospital working with the petitioner also moved to Aster DM Healthcare later," the Court noted.

The oncologist had rendered 19 years of service at Manipal Hospital before he resigned in 2022 to join Aster DM Healthcare in Bengaluru.

After he joined Aster, Manipal received communication from a verification entity, DataFlow Services, to authenticate the oncologist's experience certificate.

Manipal Hospital denied having issued any experience certificate and lodged a complaint with the police stating the doctor had forged the signature on the experience certificate.

After the investigation, the police filed a 'B report' (closure report), finding that there was no compelling evidence to sustain the forgery allegations against the doctor. However, Manipal Hospital challenged this by filing a protest petition. This led the trial court to reject the 'B' report and issued summons to the doctor.

The doctor then approached the Karnataka High Court to quash the proceedings against him.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the doctor’s credentials and long-standing reputation rendered the allegations that he had committed forgery to make up an experience certificate improbable.

"The allegation that the petitioner forged the signature on the experience certificate, which he neither requires nor stood to materially benefit from is so inherently improbable that compelling him to undergo the rigmarole or an ordeal of trial would itself amount to punishment," it said.

The Court went on to conclude that the criminal case appeared to be retaliatory and a misuse of the law.

"What emerges prima facie is less a case of criminality and more an instance of criminal law being invoked as an instrument of retaliation. The timing, circumstances and nature of allegation unmistakably suggest an attempt to arm-twist the petitioner from choosing to leave one institution to another. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to degenerate into such a weapon."

The Court termed this turn of events deeply disquieting.

"Nothing could be more startling, if not deeply disquieting than the spectacle of an institution accusing a doctor – who devotedly served it, for nearly 20 years, of forging proof of experience, that the institution itself had witnessed, benefitted from, can scarcely be denied by the institution."

Doctors must be left free to pursue their noble calling of healing without fearing unnecessary criminal prosecutions, the Court underscored. It warned that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal or institutional vendettas and that medical professionals should not be subjected to unwarranted prosecution without compelling evidence.

"To invoke the coercive machinery of criminal law on anything less would not merely inflict grave prejudice upon the individual doctor, but would also cast a chilling shadow over the fearless discharge of medical duties," the Court added.

It proceeded to quash the criminal case against the oncologist.

"To implicate the petitioner- a doctor, in criminal action not for any independent culpable act, but merely because stands caught in the cross fire of two competing hospitals, would on the face of it, be a patent abuse of the process of the law," the Court held.

Senior Advocate HS Chandramouli with Advocate Rajath represented the doctor.

High Court Government Pleader Waheeda MM appeared for the State, and Advocate H Mujtaba appeared for Manipal Hospital's representative.

[Read Order]