Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

But the job is not done yet!
Vote for the deserving candidate this year.

Check your mail to know more

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
SPONSORED BY
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
»
2-min read

Jaya Death Probe: Madras HC Rejects Apollo Hospital's Plea

A bench comprising Justices R Subbaih and Krishnan Ramasamy refused to stall the proceedings of the commission and disposed of the petition filed by the hospital seeking to quash the government orders which laid down the terms and reference of the probe panel.

PTI

Updated:April 4, 2019, 11:02 PM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
Jaya Death Probe: Madras HC Rejects Apollo Hospital's Plea
File photo of J Jayalalithaa. (Getty Images)
Loading...
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected Apollo Hospital's objections to an inquiry commission set up to probe the death of late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa looking into aspects of treatment given to her.

As mandated by its terms of reference, the Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry was empowered and entitled to go into the appropriateness, efficacy, adequacy or inadequacy of the treatment given to Jayalalithaa during her 75-day hospitalisation in 2016, it said.

A bench comprising Justices R Subbaih and Krishnan Ramasamy refused to stall the proceedings of the commission and disposed of the petition filed by the hospital seeking to quash the government orders which laid down the terms and reference of the probe panel.

It also rejected the prayer of the hospital for setting up a medical board to assist the panel during the inquiry.

The court found fault with the commission over the procedure adopted by it in filing an application before the panel through its own counsel and also the counter to Apollo Hospitals.

The counter had observations alluding to collusion, conspiracy, inaction and inappropriate treatment against the hospital and the then state Health Secretary.

The bench said if a harmonious interpretation was made to the terms of reference, the government was careful enough to include the word "subsequent treatment provided till her unfortunate demise on December 5, 2016".

This meant the nature and extent of treatment given by Apollo Hospital, which includes appropriateness, adequacy or inadequacy of the treatment, the court said.

"We are of the view that if the commission is restrained from going into the correctness, efficacy, adequacy or inadequacy of the medical treatment provided by the petitioner hospital, it would only defeat the very object with which the government had appointed the commission of inquiry," it said.

Therefore, the panel can go into the correctness, efficacy, adequacy or inadequacy of the medical treatment provided by Apollo Hospital by screening the records produced before it and arrive at a conclusion, the bench said.

It disagreed with the hospital's contention that a retired judge of the high court (Arumughaswamy) cannot be the competent person to deal with the complex and intricate medical treatment and hence experts and professionals should be included in the panel.

Even in the absence of inclusion of experts or professionals, as per Section 5B of Commission of Inquiry Act, the commission can independently take the aid of any person who, in its opinion, shall be of assistance for conducting the inquiry.

Referring to the hospital's charge that its doctors were repeatedly questioned and harassed, the bench said it was not inclined to accept the submissions that witnesses (doctors) were wantonly, willfully and deliberately harassed by the commission.

Though the commission had cast certain aspersions against the petitioner hospital, it will not vitiate the inquiry proceedings hitherto conducted, the court said expressing hope the panel will confine its inquiry strictly within the scope and ambit of terms of reference.

The government had set up the inquiry commission to look into the circumstances leading to the death of late AIADMK supremo on December 5, 2016, citing doubts expressed by various people.
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
 
T&C Apply. ARN EU/04/19/13626
 

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
  • 01 d
  • 12 h
  • 38 m
  • 09 s
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results