COLOMBO — The family of a woman who died following treatment at Asiri Central Hospital questions a reported fraud complaint against her daughter, while the hospital denies allegations of medical negligence and delays in releasing the patient’s remains.
A dispute over substantial medical bills following the death of a woman at Asiri Central Hospital has become the subject of further allegations, with the deceased patient’s daughter reportedly facing a financial fraud complaint while seeking answers about her mother’s treatment and the circumstances in which her body was released.
The reported complaint against the daughter concerns an outstanding hospital payment exceeding Rs. 10 million. The source account alleges that legal proceedings have been initiated despite the family having already made substantial payments towards the cost of treatment.
The daughter had previously complained to Maradana Police about her mother’s death and an alleged two-day delay in releasing the body from Asiri Central Hospital on Norris Canal Road, Colombo.
Those concerns were subsequently brought before the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court, where judicial directions concerning the post-mortem examination and preservation of evidence were reportedly issued.
The source now alleges that the financial proceedings against the daughter are intended to discourage her from pursuing the investigation into her mother’s death.
That accusation has not been independently substantiated.
Asiri Central Hospital has denied allegations of medical negligence and rejected claims that the patient’s remains were withheld because hospital bills remained unsettled.
The central questions concern the circumstances of the patient’s death, the accuracy of the outstanding account, the legal basis of the reported fraud complaint and whether the two proceedings are connected.
Daughter’s Complaint Led to Judicial Examination of Death
The deceased woman, identified in the latest source account as Mrs. Sunethra, was reportedly a resident of the Nawala area in Rajagiriya.
She had undergone treatment at Asiri Central Hospital for approximately 45 days before her death.
According to information supplied concerning the proceedings, her daughter complained to Maradana Police about the circumstances surrounding the death and the hospital’s alleged failure to release the body promptly.
The matter was subsequently placed before the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court.
Earlier reporting identified Acting Magistrate Premalal Athukorala as having issued directions concerning the post-mortem examination and the release of the body to the daughter following that examination.
The source account states that hospital treatment records, including the Bed Head Ticket (BHT), were obtained for investigative purposes.
It also alleges that internal organ samples were referred to the Government Analyst for toxicological examination because the cause of death had not been conclusively determined.
Those procedures are important in establishing whether the death resulted from an underlying medical condition, complications arising during treatment or another cause requiring investigation.
The undertaking of a post-mortem examination or toxicological testing does not, by itself, establish medical negligence.
No final forensic finding demonstrating that the hospital or its medical personnel caused the patient’s death through negligent treatment has been independently obtained.
Was the Body Withheld Over Outstanding Hospital Bills?
A central disagreement concerns the circumstances in which the patient’s remains were released to her family.
The daughter reportedly maintains that the hospital retained the body for approximately two days while questions remained over the outstanding medical account.
In a statement dated October 16, Asiri Central Hospital rejected that allegation.
Management said there had been no delay in releasing the patient’s remains despite the existence of unsettled bills.
The hospital also maintained that appropriate medical care had been provided in accordance with established clinical practices.
The family’s account presents a different sequence of events, pointing to the need for judicial intervention before the remains were handed over.
The source identifies Acting Magistrate Athukorala as having directed the release following the post-mortem examination.
However, the existence of a judicial direction does not necessarily establish that the hospital unlawfully detained the body or demanded payment as a condition of release.
Establishing what occurred requires examination of the hospital’s records, the family’s requests, police documentation, the post-mortem arrangements and the precise terms of the court order.
The family also alleges that visible wounds on the deceased woman’s body warranted further medical examination.
According to the supplied account, the court directed that the remains be buried at Borella Cemetery with an identifying marker, rather than cremated, to preserve the possibility of further examination if necessary.
The reported burial direction and the reasons for it require confirmation from the certified judicial record.
Medical Bills and Reported Payments Require Reconciliation
The financial dispute centres on the cost of approximately 45 days of hospital treatment.
The source account identifies a total bill of Rs. 22,406,313, equivalent to approximately Rs. 22.4 million.
It also states that the daughter personally contributed approximately Rs. 11.8 million towards her mother’s treatment.
Elsewhere, however, the account describes payments exceeding Rs. 10 million and contains an inconsistent reference suggesting that the entire Rs. 22.4 million bill had already been settled.
Those statements cannot all be accepted as an accurate account of the outstanding balance without examining the underlying records.
A reliable assessment would require an itemised hospital bill, receipts, payment confirmations, credit notes and a reconciliation showing the amount remaining payable at the time of the patient’s death.
The reported total also raises questions about the nature and cost of the treatment provided.
A hospital bill of approximately Rs. 22.4 million over 45 days represents an average charge approaching Rs. 498,000 per day.
That calculation describes average expenditure, not the cost of any particular treatment or procedure.
It cannot establish overcharging or inappropriate medical care without a detailed account of the services, medicines, procedures, intensive-care requirements and professional fees involved.
Nevertheless, the family is entitled to seek a clear explanation of the charges and the medical treatment for which they were incurred.
Reported Fraud Complaint Raises Separate Legal Questions
The latest source account claims that the hospital pursued a criminal fraud complaint against the deceased woman’s daughter over the unsettled account.
It further alleges that the complaint was brought through private legal proceedings after the daughter sought an investigation into her mother’s death.
The legal distinction between an unpaid debt and criminal fraud is important.
Failure to pay a bill does not automatically establish criminal intent.
A criminal allegation would require proof of the relevant elements of the particular offence, including dishonest intention where required by law.
At the same time, a financial transaction cannot be categorised as a civil dispute solely because it involves an unpaid invoice. The facts surrounding how services were obtained and the representations allegedly made may also be relevant.
The source argues that the daughter lacked any intention to defraud the hospital because substantial payments had already been made.
Such payments would be relevant to assessing the circumstances of the transaction, but they would not necessarily determine every legal issue.
The complaint’s allegations, the relevant Penal Code provisions and the evidence submitted to court must therefore be examined before conclusions are drawn about whether a criminal offence has been disclosed.
The reported grant of bail to the daughter also requires confirmation through the relevant court proceedings.
Bail, if granted, would not itself determine the merits of the financial allegations.
Allegations of Retaliation Have Not Been Established
The most serious accusation in the source material is that the reported financial proceedings were initiated to place pressure on the daughter because she complained about her mother’s death.
According to the account, the timing of the complaint suggests an attempt to intimidate or discourage a person who may provide evidence in the death investigation.
Such conduct, if established, could raise serious concerns about interference with legal proceedings.
However, timing alone does not prove retaliation.
A determination would require evidence showing whether the financial complaint was knowingly pursued for an improper purpose, rather than as an attempt to recover money or address an alleged criminal transaction.
Relevant evidence could include the hospital’s internal correspondence, instructions concerning recovery of the outstanding amount, the original complaint and any communications between the parties.
The source has not independently established that Asiri management instructed anyone to intimidate the daughter or interfere with her participation in the death investigation.
It would therefore be premature to describe the reported complaint as a proven conspiracy or abuse of judicial process.
The allegations nonetheless warrant careful examination because the complainant in a death investigation should be able to provide evidence without unlawful interference.
Separate Medicine-Pricing Case Involves Asiri Directors
Asiri Hospital Holdings and several members of its board, including Chairman Ashok Pathirage, have faced separate proceedings concerning allegations that medicines were sold above government-regulated maximum retail prices.
The National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) initiated proceedings before the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court concerning the sale of 11 pharmaceutical products.
In January 2024, a hospital representative entered a guilty plea during proceedings before an acting magistrate, resulting in a Rs. 25,000 fine.
The circumstances of that order were subsequently challenged, and the matter returned to court.
In September 2025, warrants were issued against several directors following their failure to appear as required.
The directors subsequently appeared and were granted bail.
Further proceedings took place before the High Court and Court of Appeal, including challenges to orders made in the Magistrate’s Court.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a petition brought by the directors in November 2025 on procedural grounds, while a further High Court decision concerning the earlier order was reported in March 2026.
These proceedings concern medicine pricing under the NMRA Act.
They are legally separate from the investigation into the death of the woman at Asiri Central Hospital and the reported financial complaint involving her daughter.
The fact that directors faced warrants or were granted bail in the medicine-pricing matter does not establish wrongdoing in the death investigation.
Nor does it demonstrate that they improperly influenced the reported proceedings over the unpaid medical bill.
Questions About Clinical Care and Management Oversight
The supplied commentary identifies Dr. Samanthi De Silva as a senior executive responsible for clinical operations within the Asiri hospital network and calls for explanations concerning the care provided to the deceased patient.
Her precise responsibilities for the individual patient’s treatment and supervision have not been independently established.
The questions raised by the family concern the duration and cost of treatment, the development of reported wounds, the cause of death and the medical decisions taken during the patient’s admission.
Among the matters requiring clarification are:
- What treatment and procedures accounted for the reported Rs. 22.4 million bill during the 45-day admission?
- What clinical records document the reported wounds, and were appropriate assessments and preventive measures undertaken?
- What were the findings of the post-mortem examination, and why was further toxicological testing considered necessary?
- Did the hospital provide the family with accurate billing information and an adequate explanation of the treatment?
- What circumstances led to police and court involvement in the release of the patient’s remains?
- What is the legal and evidentiary basis of the reported fraud complaint against the daughter?
These are legitimate matters for medical, administrative and judicial examination.
They do not establish individual negligence or wrongdoing by Dr. De Silva or any other medical professional.
Determining clinical responsibility would require expert consideration of the patient’s condition, treatment records, applicable standards of care and forensic findings.
December 17 Proceedings and Outstanding Evidence
The source account states that preliminary legal objections concerning the reported financial complaint are expected to be submitted on December 17.
That date has not been independently confirmed through a published court calendar or certified order.
The outcome of the separate investigation into the patient’s death will depend heavily on the medical and forensic evidence.
The post-mortem findings, Government Analyst’s report, hospital treatment records and any expert assessments will be particularly important.
Equally, the reported fraud proceedings must be examined on their own evidence, including the financial records and the legal grounds on which the complaint was initiated.
Asiri Central Hospital has publicly denied medical negligence and any delay in releasing the body because of unpaid bills. Its specific response to the allegations of retaliation and the latest reported fraud proceedings has not been independently obtained.
The family disputes aspects of the hospital’s account and continues to seek answers about the death and the treatment provided.
Until the relevant records are examined and the courts reach their findings, neither the allegations against the hospital nor those reportedly made against the daughter should be treated as established facts.
The immediate priority is to establish an accurate sequence of events, reconcile the medical account and obtain the forensic findings needed to determine what occurred during the patient’s final admission.
SOURCE:- HARI DESHAYA
