- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1788 WP No. 37243 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 37243 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNA SEVASHRAMA HOSPITAL NO.523, 10TH MAIN, 45TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH GOWDA., ADVOCATE SMT.SHEELA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL NO.70, 2ND FLOOR, VAIDYAKEEYA BHAVANA, K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. MR MOHAMMED FAYAZ S/O MR MOHAMMED SHAFI, NO.31, L CROSS, N.G.PALYA, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 0… 3. 3RD ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1788 WP No. 37243 of 2013 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY HOSMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-DISMISSED AGAINST V/O DT:18.10.2016; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Shirish Krishna., counsel on behalf of Smt.Sheela Krishna., for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: It is said that the wife of the second respondent was admitted to the petitioner Hospital on 14.06.2010 for delivery and was discharged on 19.06.2010. On 16.06.2010, she delivered a female baby by a "Caesarian Section" under "Spinal Anesthesia". There was a allegation of negligence that was attributed to the Doctor and Nurse. Hence, the second respondent made a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru against the petitioner and also the Doctor complaining medical negligence. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1788 WP No. 37243 of 2013 The Police received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.344/2010 under Section 338 of IPC. After the investigation, the Police referred the complaint to the first respondent Karnataka Medical Council by letter dated 21.01.2011 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and requested the first respondent to offer its opinion as to whether the burns allegedly suffered by the patient was on account of the negligence of the Doctors, or the staff of the hospital by enclosing the complaint. After the receipt of the letter from the Police, the first respondent issued notice under Section 16 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 to Dr.Nagalakshmi, OBG Specialist and the petitioner seeking replies to the complaint of the second respondent. The petitioner submitted its reply to the notice by its letter dated 04.02.2011 along with Report on patient Anjuma Fathima. The petitioner also filed written arguments before the first respondent. The first respondent passed the order on 13.12.2012 holding that there has been negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of Writ Petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1788 WP No. 37243 of 2013 3. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the impugned order is that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the order. 5. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner. The coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.52807/2013 disposed of on 12.11.2019, taking note of the provisions of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 has held that the Medical Council cannot take action against the private hospital. It is also held that the amended provision of Section 16 of the Act does not confer power on Karnataka Medical Council to initiate action against the hospital, as it merely recognizes to take action based on written complaint. Hence, the order passed by the first respondent against the petitioner hospital is liable to be set-aside and so, it is set-aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1788 WP No. 37243 of 2013 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Karnataka Medical Council vide Annexure-F is quashed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80