Kurunegala Chief Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne has rejected a request by the Kurunegala Police’s Miscellaneous Complaints Division to remand a 76-year-old man who was accused of obstructing a doctor’s duties at the Kurunegala Teaching Hospital’s eye clinic.
Instead, the Chief Magistrate ordered the release of the suspect, Benedict Hettiarachchi, a 76-year-old resident of Gunarathana Mawatha, Malkaduwa, on a surety bail of Rs. 200,000.
The police told the court that Hettiarachchi had allegedly interfered with the work of Dr. Lanka Ranasinghe, who was on duty at the eye clinic that day. They said they were still conducting investigations into the incident and requested the court to remand the suspect in the meantime.
However, representing the elderly patient, Senior Attorney Keerthi Dunusinghe explained that only 80 patients were given numbered appointments to be seen that day, and Hettiarachchi was number 63 on the list. Despite this, the doctor had reportedly examined several people who hadn’t received numbers, bypassing those waiting in order.
Dunusinghe told the court that these unnumbered patients were from the doctor’s private practice, suggesting a clear conflict of interest. He emphasized that Hettiarachchi is a poor, elderly man with a serious eye condition, and criticized the attempt to imprison him over such a matter.
He added that it was disgraceful and uncivilized for the police to seek imprisonment of an elderly patient — especially when the police regularly rely on the cooperation of doctors for various medical reports. Dunusinghe argued that this move appeared to be an effort to please the doctor, rather than uphold justice.
After hearing both sides, Chief Magistrate Gunaratne firmly rejected the police’s request and granted bail to Hettiarachchi.
Inspector Seneviratne from the Miscellaneous Complaints Division appeared for the complainant (the doctor), while Attorney Keerthi Dunusinghe represented the elderly suspect.
The case has been postponed for further hearing, but the decision to grant bail has sparked wider attention, with lawyers and the public calling for deeper investigations into misconduct and favoritism within hospital systems.
This incident has also stirred concern over professionalism and fairness in public hospitals, especially regarding how elderly and underprivileged patients are treated. Health experts say it’s time for structural reforms to improve service quality and transparency in state healthcare institutions.
The ruling has been widely seen as a victory for citizen rights and a reminder of the importance of judicial independence. It also highlights the need to treat elderly patients with dignity and fairness in public services.
As of now, Dr. Ranasinghe and the hospital administration have not issued any public statements in response to the court’s decision. The case will be taken up again at a later date.
