Court Orders Mangaluru Activist to Pay ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Defaming Hospital During COVID-19
The Second Additional Senior Civil Court in Mangaluru has ordered a local social activist to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to a private hospital for making defamatory remarks on social media. The legal action stems from comments made on Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the hospital's treatment protocols and billing practices.
The ruling sets a significant precedent for digital accountability, emphasizing that while social activism is protected, it does not grant individuals the right to damage a person or institution's reputation without verified facts. The court highlighted the long-term effort required to build a reputation compared to the speed with which it can be tarnished online.
- September 1, 2020: A patient named Sadashivam was admitted to Mangala Hospital with COVID-19 infection.
- September 13, 2020: The patient passed away despite treatment efforts.
- Same Day: Activist Sunil Bajilakeri visited the hospital, allegedly abused staff, and posted defamatory live videos on Facebook.
- Post-Incident: The hospital partners filed a defamation suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
- February 2026: The court delivered its final verdict in favor of the hospital.
Judge H. Satish, presiding over the court, partially allowed the suit filed by hospital partners Dr. P. Ganapathi and Anita G. Bhat. The court noted that the activist's claims of medical negligence and financial exploitation were not supported by direct, verified evidence before being shared publicly.
During the first wave of the pandemic, Mangala Hospital was designated as a COVID-19 center by the district administration. Records presented to the court showed that the hospital successfully treated and discharged 105 patients during that critical period.
The court has directed Sunil Bajilakeri to pay ₹5 lakh compensation with 6% annual interest. The payment must be completed within three months from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the activist is permanently barred from publishing any defamatory statements, photos, or articles related to the hospital on any social media platform, TV news channel, or newspaper.
The dispute originated from the treatment of Sadashivam, whose family insisted on staying at Mangala Hospital despite being advised to seek treatment elsewhere for Ayushman Bharat insurance claims. The hospital had already provided a discount of ₹1.49 lakh on a total bill of ₹3.12 lakh.
Despite the hospital's gesture, the activist allegedly barged into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and abused medical staff. He later posted videos claiming the hospital was "incapable" of treating COVID-19 patients and was solely motivated by money.
Under Indian defamation law, a statement is considered defamatory if it tends to lower a person or institution in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The Magistrate observed that "no person has any right to spoil the reputation of any individual in society." The court emphasized that a person must have direct information and must verify its accuracy before making public allegations.
The court also issued an injunction restraining the activist from trespassing into any part of the hospital premises or causing any damage to the property. This measure aims to protect the physical security of the healthcare facility and its staff.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries regarding "Facebook Live" sessions and viral posts. The court found that the continuous defamatory posts caused significant mental trauma and reputational damage to the medical professionals involved.
For the general public, this case highlights that digital platforms are subject to the same defamation laws as traditional media. Sharing unverified allegations about healthcare providers can lead to significant financial penalties and legal restrictions. Verification is a legal necessity before publicizing grievances.
What is officially confirmed: The Mangaluru Second Additional Senior Civil Court has passed a formal order for ₹5 lakh compensation plus interest. A permanent injunction has been granted against the defendant, Sunil Bajilakeri, regarding future defamatory content and hospital trespass.
What is not yet proven: While the civil court has addressed the defamation and reputational damage, any potential criminal proceedings or appeals by the defendant remain part of the evolving legal process.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can an individual be sued for a Facebook Live video?Yes. As demonstrated in this case, live videos containing unverified and defamatory allegations can lead to civil lawsuits and significant compensation orders if they damage a person's or organization's reputation.
2. Does "social activism" protect someone from defamation charges?No. While activism is a form of expression, the court ruled that it does not provide a license to bypass the responsibility of verifying facts or to use abusive language against others.
3. What was the hospital's defense regarding the patient's bill?The hospital proved that they had offered a substantial discount of ₹1.49 lakh and had advised the family on insurance options. The court found the activist's claims of financial exploitation to be defamatory.
References / Sources:
- Official Court Order: Second Additional Senior Civil Court and CJM, Mangaluru (Judge H. Satish).
- Reported via CourtBeat News: english.courtbeatnews.com
.png)
