The trust that manages the premier hospital at Charni Road has described the posts by Dr Asiya Khan Luqman as “completely false”

Published on: Sep 10, 2026, 08:00:00 IST

Prefer HTon Google

Share via
Copy link

MUMBAI: The Saifee Hospital Trust has filed a defamation suit in the Bombay High Court against a first-year general surgery trainee, seeking ₹125 crore in damages over two social media posts in which she alleged that the hospital and its doctors subjected medical trainees to illegal working hours, ragging, torture and mental harassment.

The trust, which manages the premier hospital at Charni Road, has described the posts by Dr Asiya Khan Luqman as “completely false”. It has alleged that the posts were intended to “arm-twist the hospital into [meeting] her personal demands” and were a deliberate attempt to divert attention from her own “reckless” conduct.

“The attempt to characterise the consequences of her own conduct as mental torture or harassment is an effort to evade accountability and shift the focus away from the trainee’s own misconduct,” the plea, filed on September 3, states.

A single-judge bench of justice Arif Doctor has directed Luqman to refrain from publishing any defamatory posts on social media while the hearing is pending before it.

The dispute stems from allegations concerning Luqman’s attendance and conduct after she joined Saifee Hospital in February this year as a DNB (Diplomate of National Board) general surgery trainee, after being allotted the seat through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Postgraduate).

According to the trust, between March and May, Luqman took unauthorised leaves, which affected departmental functioning and patient care responsibilities. It also alleged that she showed a serious lack of attention to work and had an indifferent attitude, which it termed a dereliction of duty.

The trust said it issued Luqman several warnings and also reported a few incidents to the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS).

In a June 3 letter to an NBEMS officer, the hospital reported her “continued non-compliance”. It alleged that she had not attended to a single patient since May 20, was not found at her workplace during work hours, and had not responded to any of the memos seeking an explanation.

Luqman was subsequently given an opportunity to raise her grievances before the hospital’s grievance redressal committee (GRC) on June 4. According to the hospital, she admitted to her lapses, non-compliance and mistakes during the meeting.

On July 1, Luqman allegedly demanded that the hospital’s medical director grant her Sundays off exclusively. The hospital declined her request, stating that it is a 24×7 institution providing continuous patient care, including emergency services, and that resident trainees are deployed according to institutional and patient-care requirements throughout the week.

Luqman subsequently published two social media posts in which she alleged mental harassment by seniors and the hospital management, and tagged the Mumbai Police and police commissioner.

Terming her allegations as baseless, the trust stated that Luqman “continuously displayed negligent, erratic and irresponsible” conduct. It said the alleged acts and omissions were serious and warranted disciplinary action, which was already underway.

“Such reckless and unsupported imputations cannot be permitted to be used as a device to tarnish the hospital’s reputation. This is not only likely to affect patient intake at the hospital but is also likely to discourage future resident doctors from joining the hospital, and will have a direct impact on the hospital’s highest revenue-earning department. The defendant’s defamatory statements had a direct and substantial impact on the trust’s character and reputation,” the suit claimed.

Advocate Satyam Singh, representing Luqman, told , “Raising a grievance against alleged workplace excesses, including duty hours contrary to prescribed norms, and approaching the competent academic and regulatory authorities for redressal does not, in law, amount to defamation. There is a clear and settled distinction between defamation on the one hand and the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression on the other, particularly where the object is to seek justice and enforcement of existing rules, and not to malign an institution”.

He added that Luqman does not wish to pursue adversarial litigation, and her only request is that she be permitted to continue and complete her DNB course peacefully, with dignity, and in accordance with the rules governing resident training.

Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crickit, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Infographics & much more. Explore now!



Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.

See Less