Karnataka High Court Slams Manipal Hospital Quashes Forgery Case Against Top Oncologist

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while allowing the petition filed by the doctor, said, “Allow doctors to treat patients, do not drag him into your (inter-hospital) disputes. In private disputes, don’t make doctors scapegoats.”

Pulling up the Manipal Hospital for pursuing criminal action against a doctor who served it for around 20 years, the bench orally said, “You hospital should have been magnanimous and ignored the document; he (petitioner) has served you for 20 years.”

The dispute arose soon after oncologist Somashekar S P resigned from the Manipal hospital to join Aster DM Healthcare.

The Manipal Hospital contended that between November 8, 2022, and November 21, 2022, it had received an email from Dataflow Services, seeking verification of an experience certificate allegedly issued by the institute to the petitioner. The hospital claimed it never issued any experience certificate to the petitioner, and, therefore, the signature found on the certificate was forged.

The Manipal Hospital registered a private complaint before the Magistrate court, and the police consequently filed a B report (no offence made out report). The hospital then filed a protest petition questioning the police report, following which the magistrate court took cognizance of the complaint and issued a summons to Dr Somashekar for alleged offences pertaining to forgery and using forged documents under the Indian Penal Code.

The oncologist then challenged the summons before the Karnataka High Court.

In its order, the high court bench observed, “There can be nothing more appalling than the said fact that the hospital to which the petitioner had served for more than 20 years is now alleging he has forged a signature on an experience certificate, which he did not even want.”

The high court stated that the police report ought to have been accepted and the case closed.

Cancelling the criminal case, the high court remarked, “Such cases should not be even permitted to be tried; the concerned court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence against a doctor and issuing summons without even looking at the documents which were produced at the time when the B report was filed. Therefore, the further proceedings, if permitted to continue, would on the face of it be an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

The bench, however, did not permit the doctor to “initiate malicious prosecution against the complainant in the peculiar facts of the case.”