BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court ruled that an inquiry under a Unnatural Death Report (UDR) case is intended to ascertain the circumstances surrounding an unnatural death and is not a licence for an unrestricted fishing expedition nor does it confer upon the investigating agency an unfettered authority to summon every individual remotely associated with the treatment or to repeatedly interfere with the functioning of a hospital.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while quashing eight notices issued by the Konanakunte police under Section 94 of BNSS to a doctor -- a senior consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at a private hospital and a company that runs the hospital. The UDR was registered after the death of a 29-year-old woman due to complications while she was undergoing hysteroscopic polypectomy.
The court, however, said the quashing of the notices will not come in the way of further proceedings in a case filed on May 20, 2026 before the Karnataka Medical Council.
The petitioners challenged the legality of the notices, including three issued under Section 94 of the BNSS, and sought court’s directions to the police to observe procedural safeguards laid down by the apex court in the case of Jacob Mathew and State of Punjab.
The court observed that the notices do not merely seek information for the inquiry under Section 194 of BNSS, but demand production of the anaesthesia machine and its digital ecosystem that would affect functioning of the operation theatre.
The petitioners stated they have extended complete cooperation for the inquiry and the first notice was answered by providing all documents sought. They also submitted a 64 GB pendrive containing CCTV footage and also furnished the entire unedited video recording of the procedure, spanning 36 minutes and 22 seconds.