Calcutta HC says independent doctor cannot seek injunction to continue professional services at hospital

PTI, Oct 5, 2026, Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that an independent doctor cannot seek an injunction to continue providing professional services at a hospital, observing that such a contract cannot be kept alive through a court order.

A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De set aside an interim order restraining Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd, which runs Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, from acting on a termination notice issued to senior neurosurgeon Dr Sujoy Kumar Sanyal.

Sanyal had filed a suit seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement said to have been entered into in November 2005 governing his professional association with the hospital.

He also challenged a May 18, 2026 termination notice and disputed an agreement dated April 2, 2025, claiming he had neither executed nor consented to it.

The bench noted that the alleged oral agreement did not disclose a specific date or details of where or in whose presence it was made. It held that an arrangement for an independent doctor’s professional services was determinable by its nature and could not be specifically enforced.

An injunction supporting such a contract was therefore barred.

The court rejected Sanyal’s argument that three months’ notice was inadequate. It said the hospital could entrust patients to another doctor using its medical records.

The bench also noted that Sanyal had sought three months to continue treating patients after acknowledging the termination communication.

The court said there was no contractual relationship between the doctor and the hospital’s patients and that he could not espouse their cause.

It also noted that he had meanwhile joined another hospital.

Finding no prima facie case, urgency or irreparable injury, the court set aside the interim order.

The defendants were directed to file written objections by October 15.

The trial court was asked to decide the injunction application expeditiously, preferably within a month of reopening after annual vacation.

The High Court clarified that its findings were tentative.