Bengaluru: In a significant and concerning development, Justice P. Krishna Bhat (Retd.), who served as the Chairman of the Ethics Committee at the renowned HCG Cancer Hospital, has voluntarily resigned from his post. His resignation follows serious allegations that the hospital conducted unauthorized and unethical clinical trials on unsuspecting and poor patients.
Speaking on the matter, Justice Bhat expressed deep concern: “This is a highly regrettable incident. These activities took place without my knowledge. I became aware of them only after poor patients reached out to me personally. The clinical trials were conducted in total disregard of standard protocols and guidelines. There was a clear lapse in communication within our committee.”
Justice Bhat strongly condemned the exploitation of vulnerable individuals: “The helplessness of the poor was used as a tool for commercial gain. I have explained everything in detail in my resignation letter. The treatments were carried out in an unethical manner that violated our committee’s ethical policies. This is completely unacceptable. Such actions are not only unethical but also dangerous, with potential life-threatening consequences. Some doctors have also raised concerns that the quality of the drugs used was substandard.”
What prompted his resignation?
Justice Bhat revealed his dissatisfaction with the internal functioning of the hospital: “Important information and opinions from other officials and doctors were deliberately concealed by hospital staff. I only came to know about it when the affected patients contacted me directly. Even when I raised concerns, they seemed to fall on deaf ears. I found this system to be deeply flawed, and I could not, in good conscience, remain a part of it.”
He added: “Any system that can directly harm patients, disregards their lives, and operates in such a blind and unethical manner cannot be justified. Seeing how things were being handled, I had no choice but to step down.” Through his resignation, Justice P. Krishna Bhat has taken a bold and principled stand against a system he believes is morally compromised. His decision raises serious questions: If even a retired High Court Judge was sidelined and kept in the dark, what chance does an ordinary citizen have in such a system?