High Court Intervenes in Hospital Body Retention Case, Stays PSHRC Directives
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant stay order against directives from the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC) that required doctors and hospital directors to appear personally in a controversial case involving the alleged withholding of a patient's body over unpaid medical bills.
Court Questions PSHRC's Suo Motu Proceedings
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry stayed all PSHRC orders mandating the personal appearance of directors from Max Super Specialty Hospital in Mohali and Manipal Hospital in Patiala, along with treating physician Dr. GS Siddhu. Instead, the court directed these parties to submit detailed affidavits with supporting documentation.
The bench indicated it would later examine whether the PSHRC's suo motu cognizance of the incident was validly taken. This scrutiny focuses on whether a single non-judicial member of the commission acted appropriately in initiating proceedings without circulating the matter among all commission members.
Origins of the Controversial Case
The PSHRC intervened following a news report in a Hindi daily alleging that Max Hospital had demanded substantial payment—initially reported as approximately Rs 7.21 lakh, though social media discussions later amplified this figure to Rs 35 lakh—before releasing the body of a patient from Patiala.
On December 16, 2025, a non-judicial PSHRC member took suo motu cognizance of this report and ordered investigations from the Civil Surgeon and other authorities. The commission subsequently summoned hospital officials with strong reprimands, warning that "next time bring your director along."
Expanding Scope of Inquiry
The PSHRC's investigation expanded significantly beyond the initial body retention allegation. The commission:
- Constituted a four-doctor committee to examine medical records, treatment provided, and circumstances surrounding the patient's death
- Ordered the Civil Surgeon of SAS Nagar and the Deputy Commissioner to file detailed inquiry reports
- Directed Dr. Siddhu to appear before the commission to answer questions about diagnosis, treatment, and reasons for referring the patient from Manipal Hospital to Max Hospital
- Required hospitals to file affidavits explaining their charging practices for rooms, operations, medicines, and other procedures
- Sought historical records including hospital site allotment papers from 2009 and completion certificates from 2012
Social Media Controversy and Legal Arguments
The same PSHRC member who initiated the proceedings became embroiled in controversy by publicly commenting on the case through interviews, podcasts, and social media broadcasts. He stated that FIRs would be registered against hospital directors and the treating doctor, claiming "heavens will not fall" if the doctor appeared before the commission.
Senior advocate AS Rai, representing Max Hospital, described these actions as "publicity-hungry litigation" that exceeded the commission's recommendatory jurisdiction and created an appearance of bias.
Rai presented several key arguments before the High Court bench:
- The Civil Surgeon's report concluded the matter was a payment dispute rather than medical negligence, with no evidence of human rights violations
- A board of four doctors examined records and found no fault in treatment or the patient's transfer between hospitals
- The patient's family had submitted a written request to keep the body for 12 hours before its release
- CCTV footage showed no coercion in the payment of approximately Rs 1 lakh
Court's Interim Directions and Future Proceedings
The division bench stayed all PSHRC orders requiring personal appearances while directing hospital officials and Dr. Siddhu to file affidavits with supporting documents. The court marked the matter for further hearing on February 17 and urged the PSHRC not to "precipitate the matter" in the interim period.
This case highlights the complex intersection of medical ethics, patient rights, hospital billing practices, and the appropriate scope of human rights commission interventions in healthcare disputes. The High Court's intervention suggests judicial concern about procedural propriety in commission proceedings and the potential overreach of investigative authorities into matters that may fundamentally represent contractual payment disputes rather than human rights violations.
