Dismissed¶12.1

Dr. M G Sadashivaiah v. Karnataka Medical Council

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025WP/57284/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Medical Council — Registrar empowered to issue show cause notice under S.16, Karnataka Medical Registration Act 1961; no preliminary enquiry or prima facie finding of medical negligence by Council required beforehand; certiorari and prohibition against enquiry notice refused; failed tubectomy negligence complaint; writ petition dismissed; KHC 2025; Justice Suraj Govindaraj.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Petitioner: the writ petition stands dismissed. Respondent No.1 (KMC) is permitted to issue a fresh notice indicating the date on which the Petitioner is required to appear before the KMC for the purpose of enquiry; the KMC shall consider the Petitioner's reply and justification during the enquiry and pass necessary orders in accordance with law; determination of negligence rests solely with the KMC. ¶12.1

Dr. M G Sadashivaiah Vs Karnataka Medical Council — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12.1

Issue for consideration

Whether a show cause notice could be issued without the KMC having come to a prima facie conclusion that medical negligence was committed by the petitioner and respondent No.3. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

Answer to Point No.1: no preliminary enquiry by the KMC is required before issuance of a show cause notice; nor need the KMC first arrive at a prima facie conclusion of medical negligence.

¶11.11

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice contained no finding of delinquency by the Registrar or the KMC; it merely informed the Petitioner of the charges framed and summoned him to the enquiry, and therefore cannot be found fault with; the KMC was not required to meet and pass a preliminary order declaring the Petitioner prima facie guilty before issuing it.

¶11.9

Key takeaways

Answer to Point No.2: the Registrar of the KMC can issue a show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner to attend the enquiry proceedings; such a notice need not be issued by the KMC itself.ratio¶11.12
Rejecting counsel's contention that only the Council can issue the notice: the KMR Act contains no provision requiring the notice to be issued by the Council itself; the Act provides only (under Section 15) that the enquiry be held by the Medical Council and orders passed by the Medical Council.ratio¶11.8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), Writ Petition No. 57284 of 2016 (GM-RES), decided 16 July 2025 (CAV order). A medical practitioner (Medical Director, Sai Baba Hospital), invoking Articles 226 & 227, challenged show cause notice No.ENQ/52/2015 dated 29.09.2016 issued by the Registrar of the Karnataka Medical Council under Section 16 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, following Respondent No.2's complaint of medical negligence arising out of an allegedly failed tubectomy performed by Respondent No.3 at the Petitioner's hospital. Held: (1) the KMC need not first reach a prima facie conclusion of medical negligence, nor hold any preliminary enquiry, before issuing a show cause notice — the notice merely communicates charges framed and summons the practitioner to the Council's enquiry; (2) the Registrar of the KMC is competent to issue such show cause notice, the Act containing no provision requiring the Council itself to issue it. Petition dismissed; KMC permitted to issue a fresh notice fixing the enquiry date and alone competent to determine negligence after weighing the Petitioner's reply; the Court expressed no opinion on negligence.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 57284 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

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

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR NO.16/6, II FLOOR, MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHANAGARA BANGALORE-560052

¶15

SMT. GAYATHRI W/O BHANUPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, BLOCK NO.13 MIG A BLOCK, 4^TH PHASE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064

¶16

DR.JYOTHI SRIRAM

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

W/O DR.DHANRAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNECOLOGIST C/O ANANYA HOSPITAL PVT LTD NO.389/44, 19^TH MAIN, I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA BANGALORE-560010

¶21

…. RESPONDENTS

¶22

(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)

¶23

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 1^ST 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.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

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;

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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 2^nd respondent dated 16.12.2015 in No. ENQ/52/2015 true copy of which is produced as Annexure-A;

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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 27-112011 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

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that,

¶41

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

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

31.12.2015. It was required for KMC to have

¶45

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.

¶46

5.2. The Registrar of the KMC has no power or authority to issue such a notice.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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:

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

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?

¶59

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?

¶60

iii. What order?

¶61

I answer the above points as under:

¶62

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?

¶63

And

¶64

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?

¶65

11.1. A complaint having been filed by respondent

¶66

No.2 alleging medical negligence, a copy of the complaint was furnished to the Petitioner for his

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

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

¶71

reads as under:

¶72

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

¶73

(Under Section 16 of Karnataka Medical Registration

¶74

Act)

¶75

COMPLAINANT		RESPONDENTS
Smt. Gayathri, W/o Bhanuprakash	vs	1. Dr. M.G. Sadhashivaiah,
No. 38, Block No.13, MIG “A” Block, 4^th		C/o Sai Baba Hospital, No.12, Laggere Main
Phase, Yelahanka Newtown, Bengaluru-560064		Road, Laggere, Bengaluru-560058. 2. Dr. Jyothi Sriram Obstreician & Gynecologist, C/o Ananya Hosptial Pvt. Ltd., No.389/44, 19^thMain, 1^stBlock, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010

¶76

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:

¶77

Reg: “Medical Negligence”.

¶78

Why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provision of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act (Section 15).

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

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, 12^th November, 2016 at 10.30 A.M. along with documentary evidences if any and legal assistance if you so desire.

¶82

Sd/Registrar Karnataka Medical Council

¶83

11.2. A perusal of the above notice would indicate

¶84

that the same has been issued on the letterhead of the Karnataka Medical Council and

¶85

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:

¶86

“REG: Medical Intelligence

¶87

Why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provision of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act (Section 15).”

¶88

11.3. The above would indicate that firstly, this is an

¶89

enquiry notice, secondly, it is a show cause

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

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.

¶94

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.

¶95

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.

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

Section 15 is reproduced hereunder for easy

¶100

reference:

¶101

15. Removal of Medical Practitioner’s name from register for misconduct —(1)

¶102

If a medical practitioner has been, after due inquiry by the Medical Council, found guilty of any misconduct, the Medical Council may—

¶103

(a) issue a letter of warning addressed to such medical practitioner: or

¶104

(b) direct the name of such medical practitioner—

¶105

(i) to be removed from the register for such period as may be specified in the direction: or

¶106

(ii) to be removed from the register without specifying the period or such removal.

¶107

Explanation—For the purposes of this section “misconduct” shall mean—

¶108

(a) the conviction of the medical practitioner by a Criminal Court for an offence which involves moral turpitude and which

¶109

(a) the conviction of the medical practitioner by a Criminal Court for an offence which involves moral turpitude and which

¶110

KARNATAKA LOCAL LAWS –VOL 18

¶111

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:

¶112

(b) any conduct which in the opinion of the Medical Council is infamous in relation to the medical profession.

¶113

11.6. A perusal of the above Section 15 would

¶114

indicate that if a Medical Practitioner has been,

¶115

12 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

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.

¶119

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.

¶120

11.8. Though the submission of Sri.A.V. Gangadharappa learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that it is only the Council who can

¶121

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

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.

¶124

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

¶125

14 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

of the Petitioner and pass preliminary order holding the Petitioner to be prima facie guilty of any medical negligence as alleged or otherwise.

¶129

11.10. What the Registrar has done is only informed

¶130

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.

¶131

11.11. Hence, I answer Point No. 1 by holding that there is no preliminary enquiry

¶132

required to be held by the KMC before issuance of a show cause notice.

¶133

15 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

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.

¶137

12. ANSWER POINT NO. 2: What Order?

¶138

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.

¶139

12.2. As such, I pass the following:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

i. The writ petition stands dismissed .

¶142

ii. Respondent No.1 is permitted to issue a fresh notice indicating the date on which

¶143

16 -

¶144

NC: 2025:KHC:26536 WP No. 57284 of 2016

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

the Petitioner is required to appear before the KMC for the purpose of enquiry.

¶147

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.

¶148

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.

¶149

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶150

LN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Dr. M G Sadashivaiah v. Karnataka Medical Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M G Sadashivaiah v. Karnataka Medical Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. P. Adam Vs the Recovery Officer

H K Venkatesh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

M N Subramanya Swamy Vs Shanmuga Swamy M N

Barkur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

M/S Greenfuel Supplies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Urban Gear Gifts LLP Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes