- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 57284 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN DR. M G SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE GAMALADAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, MEDICAL DIRECTOR SAI BABA HOSPITAL NO.12, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE BANGALORE-50086 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE) AND 1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR NO.16/6, II FLOOR, MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHANAGARA BANGALORE-560052 2. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O BHANUPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, BLOCK NO.13 MIG A BLOCK, 4TH PHASE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064 3. DR.JYOTHI SRIRAM Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 W/O DR.DHANRAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST C/O ANANYA HOSPITAL PVT LTD NO.389/44, 19TH MAIN, I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA BANGALORE-560010 …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CALWIN FURTODO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DORERAJ B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C.G. GOPALASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.ENQ/52/2015 DATED 29.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E BY DECLARING THAT THE SAID NOTICE IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned notice bearing No. ENQ/52/2015 dated 29.9.2016 issued by the R1 true copy which is produced as Annexure-E by declaring that the said notice is illegal and without the authority of law; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 ii. Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the R1 to for bear the taking any action on the basis of the false complaint made by the 2nd respondent dated 16.12.2015 in No. ENQ/52/2015 true copy of which is produced as Annexure-A; iii. Any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to cost. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the Medical Director of Sai Baba Hospital, situated at Laggere, Bangalore, who also claims to have worked in several government hospitals at various locations, as well as a professor of surgery at the Medical College, Bangalore. 3. Respondent No.2- Smt.Gayatri had made a complaint before respondent No.1, Karnataka Medical Council, [hereinafter referred to for brevity as KMC], alleging that she underwent a tubectomy operation on 27-11- 2011 in Sai Baba Hospital, which was conducted by respondent No.3, Dr. Jyothi Sriram, and she was discharged on 28-11-2011. It is alleged that inspite of undergoing sterilisation and tubectomy operation and despite assurance of the petitioner and respondent No.3, respondent No.2 conceived and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 gave birth to a male baby on 19-09-2015 and as such alleged that there was medical negligence on part of the petitioner and respondent No.3. 4. On the basis of said complaint, a notice had been issued on 19.12.2015 to the Petitioner, who submitted his reply on 31.12.2015; thereafter, a notice bearing No. ENQ-52-2015 was issued by the Registrar of KMC on 29-09-2016, calling upon the Petitioner to appear before the KMC without fail on 12.11.2016 at 10.30 am. It is challenging the said notice that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that, 5.1. The Registrar has no power to issue any notice to the Petitioner. It is only the Council that can initiate proceedings and cause an enquiry. A preliminary notice was issued on 19.12.2015. The same has been replied by the Petitioner on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 31.12.2015. It was required for KMC to have applied its mind to the said reply and then initiated proceedings, if the KMC were to come to the conclusion that medical negligence had been made out on the basis of the complaint. His submission is that without the KMC having applied his mind, the impugned notice could not have been issued. 5.2. The Registrar of the KMC has no power or authority to issue such a notice. 5.3. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and that the notice should be quashed, as also prohibiting the respondent KMC from initiating any action against him. 6. Respondents No.2 and 3, though they were served and represented by their respective counsel, none has appeared for them on the last several occasions. Hence, the matter has been taken up for hearing. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 7. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel had addressed his arguments on 1.07.2025 and had sought for an adjournment to place on record any decision or a provision which would require KMC to take a decision prima facie as regards medical negligence before issuing a show cause notice for a detailed enquiry. 8. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 2.07.2025, though Sri A. V. Gangadharappa learned counsel, referred to various provisions of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act 1961 [‘KMR Act] there is no particular provision that he could point out to indicate the requirement of KMC to pass a preliminary order before issuance of a show cause notice. 9. Having heard Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.Calwin Furtudo, counsel for the respondent No.1 the following questions arise for consideration: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 i. Whether a show cause notice could be issued without the KMC having come to a prima facie conclusion as regards medical negligence having been committed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3? ii. Whether a notice for enquiry under Section 16 of the KMR Act could be issued by the Registrar or would have to be issued by the KMC itself? iii. What order? 10. I answer the above points as under: 11. ANSWER TO POINT No.1: Whether a show cause notice could be issued without the KMC having come to a prima facie conclusion as regards medical negligence having been committed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3? And ANSWER TO POINT No.2: Whether a notice for enquiry under Section 16 of the KMR Act could be issued by the Registrar or would have to be issued by the KMC itself? 11.1. A complaint having been filed by respondent No.2 alleging medical negligence, a copy of the complaint was furnished to the Petitioner for his - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 comments and reply, which was so furnished as indicated above. In pursuance of which the Registrar had issued a notice bearing No.ENQ/52.2015 dated 29.09.20216 which reads as under: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (Under Section 16 of Karnataka Medical Registration Act) COMPLAINANT Smt. Gayathri, W/o Bhanuprakash No. 38, Block No.13, MIG “A” Block, 4th Phase, Yelahanka Newtown, Bengaluru-560064 vs RESPONDENTS 1. Dr. M.G. Sadhashivaiah, C/o Sai Baba Hospital, No.12, Laggere Main Road, Laggere, Bengaluru-560058. 2. Dr. Jyothi Sriram Obstreician & Gynecologist, C/o Ananya Hosptial Pvt. Ltd., No.389/44, 19th Main, 1st Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010 In continuation of this Office Notice No. KMC/ENQ/52/2015 dated 19.12.2015 and the reply furnished by you on 05.01.2016 and 05.01.2016, the following charges have been framed against you: Reg: “Medical Negligence”. Why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provision of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act (Section 15). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 Under the Powers conferred vide section 16 of Karnataka Medical Registration Act, you are directed to appear before the Karnataka Medical Council without fail on Saturday, 12th November, 2016 at 10.30 A.M. along with documentary evidences if any and legal assistance if you so desire. Sd/- Registrar Karnataka Medical Council 11.2. A perusal of the above notice would indicate that the same has been issued on the letterhead of the Karnataka Medical Council and has been signed by the Registrar, KMC. The reference No. relates to ENQ/52/2015 and the heading indicates it to be a ‘show cause notice’ issued under section 16 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act. The Registrar has indicated that the following charges have been framed against the Petitioner: “REG: Medical Intelligence Why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provision of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act (Section 15).” 11.3. The above would indicate that firstly, this is an enquiry notice, secondly, it is a show cause - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 notice, thirdly, that a charge has been framed and lastly, that the Petitioner was called upon to appear before the Karnataka Medical Council on 12.11.2016 at 10.30am. 11.4. The said notice issued by the Registrar is only informing the Petitioner as regards the charges framed and calling upon the Petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceeding by the KMC. There is no particular order which has been passed by the Registrar or the KMC on 29.09.2016 or earlier holding the Petitioner to be guilty of medical negligence or otherwise. 11.5. I have gone through the Karnataka Medical Registration Act. When a complaint having been received, the same is furnished to the Petitioner who has submitted a reply. Section 15 provides for the removal of a Medical Practitioner’s name from the register on account of misconduct. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 Section 15 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 15. Removal of Medical Practitioner’s name from register for misconduct—(1) If a medical practitioner has been, after due inquiry by the Medical Council, found guilty of any misconduct, the Medical Council may— (a) issue a letter of warning addressed to such medical practitioner: or (b) direct the name of such medical practitioner— (i) to be removed from the register for such period as may be specified in the direction: or (ii) to be removed from the register without specifying the period or such removal. Explanation—For the purposes of this section “misconduct” shall mean— (a) the conviction of the medical practitioner by a Criminal Court for an offence which involves moral turpitude and which (a) the conviction of the medical practitioner by a Criminal Court for an offence which involves moral turpitude and which KARNATAKA LOCAL LAWS –VOL 18 Cognisable as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( Central Act V of 1898), or any other law for the time being in force: (b) any conduct which in the opinion of the Medical Council is infamous in relation to the medical profession. 11.6. A perusal of the above Section 15 would indicate that if a Medical Practitioner has been, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 after due enquiry by the Medical Council, found guilty of any misconduct, the Medical Council may pass such orders as indicated therein. Thus, any order required to be passed by the Medical Council would only be after enquiry by the Medical Council. 11.7. Section 11 of the KMR Act refers to a Registrar and officer permitting the Council to appoint a Registrar who shall keep a register of Medical Practitioners in terms of Section 12 and who acts for practical purposes as the Administrative Officer of the Council. The Council, as can be seen from Section 3, consists of 15 members, as indicated therein. The Council also has a President, Vice President and the Registrar, the Council being a statutory body. 11.8. Though the submission of Sri.A.V. Gangadharappa learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that it is only the Council who can - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 issue a notice and not the Registrar, I am unable to agree with the same since the Act does not provide for any such provision. The Act only provides under Section 15 for an enquiry to be held by the Medical Council and orders to be passed by the Medical Council. 11.9. As indicated, Supra, there is no enquiry conducted by the Registrar nor is any order passed by the Registrar. By way of the show cause notice dated 29.09.2016 what the Registrar has only done is to call upon the Petitioner to be present for enquiry before the KMC on 12.11.2016. Thus, there being no finding of delinquency or otherwise as regards the Petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the notice issued by the Registrar cannot be found fault with and that there is no requirement for the KMC to have met behind the back of the Petitioner to consider the reply - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 of the Petitioner and pass preliminary order holding the Petitioner to be prima facie guilty of any medical negligence as alleged or otherwise. 11.10. What the Registrar has done is only informed the charges which have been framed and called upon the Petitioner to appear for enquiry. It is only on the basis of the enquiry that the KMC would be authorised to pass an order as regards any negligence on the part of the Petitioner or not. As of now, there is no finding of medical negligence on part of the Petitioner. It is only a complaint which has been filed by Respondent No. 2, which is required to be enquired into by KMC. 11.11. Hence, I answer Point No. 1 by holding that there is no preliminary enquiry required to be held by the KMC before issuance of a show cause notice. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 11.12. I answer point No.2 by holding that the Registrar of the KMC can issue a show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner to attend an enquiry proceedings. 12. ANSWER POINT NO. 2: What Order? 12.1. In view of my finding in respect of points No. 1 and 2 above, the KMC is yet to hold an enquiry and it is during the course of the enquiry that it will be determined if there is any negligence on part of the Petitioner or not and that being the sole prerogative of the KMC, no grounds being made out, the petition will be required to be dismissed. 12.2. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition stands dismissed. ii. Respondent No.1 is permitted to issue a fresh notice indicating the date on which - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016 the Petitioner is required to appear before the KMC for the purpose of enquiry. iii. The KMC shall consider the reply and justification of the Petitioner during the course of the enquiry and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards any negligence or otherwise on the part of the Petitioner. The same would have to be independently ascertained and determined by the KMC. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1