- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1294 OF 2020(MV-D) BETWEEN: M /S VINAYAKA HOSPITAL 1ST MAIN ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR, OPP: TUMKUR UNIVERSITY TUMKUR-3 REP. BY DR. SIDDALINGESHWAR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, NO 1/2, 59TH C CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK, BENGALURU-576 010 2. ARUN KUMAR N S/O NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RES/AT 11/1, NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, GAANDHINAGARA, TUMAKURU-572 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC.NO.713/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by M/s. Vinayaka Medical Hospital, Tumakuru, challenging the direction/observation contained in the paragraph No.18 of the judgment and award dated 21.08.2019 passed in M.V.C. No.713/2017 by the II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short, "the Tribunal"), wherein the Tribunal has observed and passed a direction as under: "18. Before parting, as regards the functioning of "Vinayak Medical Hospital, Tumakur" in deliberate defilance with mandatory guidelines issued by the Indian Medical Council is concerned: In the instant case, the 2nd respondent has chosen to summon the Registered Medical Officer / Duty Doctor, Vinayaka - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 Hospital, B.H. Road, Tumakuru, seeking to produce MLC Extract pertaining to deceased "Smt. Kusuma", who had taken First Aid treatment On: 23.02.2017 at about 8.10 p.m. Same came to be allowed vide order dated: 05.12.2018. But, however, none appeared from the hospital and no examination of witness could be concluded till 20.02.2019 for one or other reason. And finally, On: 20.03.2019, the fresh legal steps to examine Dr. Kiran Kumar, serving as a duty doctor at Vinayaka Hospital, Tumakuru being taken and he had been examined as RW.1 On: 24.04.2019. When examined, he had deposed in his examination in chief that, On: 23.02.2017, an injured in a road traffic accident, by name "Kusuma" had not been admitted at Vinayaka hospital, Tumakuru and her name is not shown either in an "inpatient" or "outpatient" register for the period from 22.02.2017 to 24.02.2017 as evidenced by the document produced and marked at Ex.R1. Quite contrary to it, when cross examined by the learned counsel for petitioner, this R.W.1: Dr. Kiran Kumar - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 /duty doctor serving in the private hospital, admits an issuance of 05 receipts from Vinayak Hospital On: 23.02.2017 and the same came to be marked by way of confrontation at Ex.P20 (a). He further admits an issuance of "OPD Bill" dated: 23.02.2017 in respect of an injured "Kusuma" in the instant case. He further admits that, she was admitted in the said hospital On: 23.02.2017, took an initial treatment and further referred for higher treatment. He further admits that, the victim "Kusuma" had sustained severe injuries over her head and other parts of the body. It is, only, thereafter, when the summoned witness examined as RW.1, although, called for examination by 2nd respondent, gave altogether different version to his own statement on oath in his examination in chief, this tribunal in exercise of powers U/Sec. 154 of Indian Evidence Act, permitted the learned counsel for 2nd respondent: Insurance Company, to cross examine R.W.1 as an adverse party. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 When cross examined, this RW.1 had deposed that, in the cases, where the patients have been admitted in their hospital, as an inpatient, the hospital authorities will mention the same in MLC extract, and in cases, where the patients do not intend to get admitted as an inpatient, the hospital authorities will treat the patient and send them without making any entries in the MLC extract, which is against the mandatory guidelines issued by the Indian Medical Council as well as Central Government Gazette on the point. He further volunteers that, in some of the cases, due to urgency and where the parties refuse to give information, the said hospital authorities will not make any MLC entry. In that regard, this R.W.1 was further cross examined by R2, wherein, he admits regarding applicability of the Guidelines as well as Gazette Notification issued by the Government of India to the private hospitals as well. He further admits that, it is mandatory, as per the guidelines that, in the cases of suspected accident, entry in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 MLC register as well as issuance of intimation to the jurisdictional police is a must. Said portion of guidelines is being marked at Ex.R2 (a) by way of confrontation to RW.1 in the instant case. He further admits in his cross examination that, hospital authorities have not maintained any records either MLC or otherwise to show an injured "Kusuma" had taken any treatment in their hospital On: 23.02.2017, and no intimation was ever issued to the jurisdictional police in the instant case. It is, therefore, the code of conduct as well as working of the private hospitals in these modern days of civilized society, with precious human life and an advanced technology, dealing with valuable life of innocent persons, assumes importance for consideration before this tribunal. It is seen from the demeanor as well as the kind of evidence adduced by RW.1: the duty doctors, as well as, the management functioning at Vinayak Hospital, Tumakuru that they are totally reluctant of their mandatory duties in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 medico legal cases and do not have minimum sensitivity to have regard to the guidelines, and to make an entry in the M.L.C. Register, and to issue intimation to the jurisdictional police, in the cases, where the patients have been brought to them with history of a road traffic accident. It is, therefore, this tribunal, on appreciation of the entire evidence of RW.1 : Dr. Kiran Kumar, working at Vinayaka Hospital, Tumakuru for the past 15 years, issuance of medical bills marked at Ex.P20 (a) and (b), without any entry in the 'inpatient' or 'outpatient' register is of the considered opinion that, in an alarming situation like this, it would be just and proper to issue necessary directions to the concerned District Health Officer, Tumakuru., having every supervisory jurisdiction over the private hospitals as well as the doctors, including RW.1, working at Vinayaka Hosptial, Tumakuru to initiate an appropriate action for dereliction of duty in not making any entry in MLC records in the case of road traffic accident, and not intimating the same to the jurisdictional police, immediately, as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 observed above, pertaining to the facts of the case in hand, and to report compliance to this tribunal. In addition to the same, DHO, Tumakuru is further directed to ensure the strict compliance of the guidelines issued by the Central Government as to mention in 'MLC Register and Intimating to Jurisdictional Police' in the cases of road traffic accident from all the Public and Private Hospitals, working within the limits of Tumakuru District." 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that, on 23.02.2017, one Kusuma sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and was initially treated as an outpatient at the appellant-hospital, where first aid was administered. Thereafter, she was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. Subsequently, she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased Kusuma instituted a claim petition before the Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 3. In support of the claim, claimant No.2 examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2, and produced 24 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P24. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RWs.1 and 2, and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. 4. Subsequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Kusuma. While passing the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal, in paragraph No.18 of the judgment directed the District Health Officer, Tumakuru District, and the Indian Medical Council to take appropriate action in compliance with the observations and submit a report as stated supra. 5. Being aggrieved by the said observation/directions, the appellant is before this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Krishnamoorthy D., for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, for respondent No.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 7. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings in M.V.C. No.713/2017. It was submitted that it is an admitted fact that the injured Kusuma was treated as an outpatient in the appellant-hospital only for stabilization of her injuries and was thereafter immediately shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on Exs.P20(a), P20(b), R2 and R2(a), which are the medical bills issued by the appellant-hospital and produced before the Tribunal by the claimants and the respondents. 8. It was further contended that, though the insurance company examined RW.1 before the Tribunal, the said witness deposed that the deceased was neither admitted to nor treated in the appellant-hospital. However, in the very same evidence, RW.1 identified the aforesaid medical bills. 9. Placing reliance on the said aspect of the matter, learned counsel contended that, the Tribunal recorded adverse observations against the appellant-hospital and issued directions to the District Health Officer, Tumakuru, and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 Indian Medical Council to take appropriate action and submit a report. 10. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on an affidavit filed along with a memo, wherein it is stated that RW.1 was not an employee of the appellant-hospital, had not treated the injured Kusuma as claimed by him, and was not authorized by the appellant- hospital to depose before the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and expunge/set aside the observations and directions issued by the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the insurance company fairly submitted that the appellant-hospital was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the hospital authorities before recording the adverse observations and issuing the impugned directions. 12. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 materials available on record including impugned judgment so also the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. As could be gathered from the records, one Kusuma sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 23.02.2017 at about 8.00 p.m. and was thereafter shifted to the appellant- hospital for first aid treatment. Though it is stated that she was admitted to the hospital, the records disclose that she was treated only as an outpatient. Thereafter, she was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. Exs.P20(a), P20(b), R2 and R2(a) are the medical bills pertaining to the appellant-hospital. This factual aspect is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. However, insofar as the evidence of RW.1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that RW.1 was not an employee of the appellant-hospital at the relevant point of time and had not treated the deceased. 15. Upon careful perusal of the evidence of RW.1, it is evident that, though he has deposed that he was a doctor and a visiting Orthopaedic Consultant at the appellant-hospital, he - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 has not produced any documentary evidence before the Tribunal in support of the said assertion. Further, there is no material on record to establish that RW.1 was authorized by the appellant-hospital to depose on its behalf before the Tribunal. On the contrary, the affidavit filed by the Managing Director- cum-Owner of the appellant-hospital discloses that RW.1 was neither an employee of the hospital during the relevant period nor had he treated the injured. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and the insurance company, the appellant-hospital was neither arrayed as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal nor afforded an opportunity to place its stand on record as to whether RW.1 was its employee during the relevant period. In the absence of such an opportunity, the adverse observations recorded by the Tribunal and the directions issued to the Indian Medical Council and the District Health Officer, Tumakuru, to initiate action against the appellant-hospital cannot be sustained. 17. Further, although RW.1 deposed that he had not treated the injured, the fact remains that Exs.P20(a), P20(b), - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35400 MFA No. 1294 of 2020 R2 and R2(a), issued by the appellant-hospital, disclose that the injured had been treated therein as an outpatient. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that the observations made by the Tribunal and the consequential directions issued against the appellant-hospital are liable to be expunged and set aside. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The observations and directions made in paragraph No.18 of the judgment passed by the Tribunal are hereby expunged. Consequently, the directions issued by the Tribunal to the Indian Medical Council and the District Health Officer, Tumakuru, are set aside. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19