![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Dec 19, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday directed two doctors to examine the two law college students discharged from the General Hospital here and lodged in the sub-jail, Saidapet, and submit a report whether they were fit for discharge or they needed continuous treatment as inpatients. The doctors should submit their report to the High Court Registry. The court directed the Superintendent of the sub-jail to permit the doctors to examine the students. Justice K. Suguna passed the interim order on petitions filed by parents of Bharati Kannan, a fourth year student, and K. Arumugham, doing the second year, at the Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College here. They were injured in a clash at the institution on November 12. In the petition, filed by counsel M. Maharajan, the petitioners alleged that due to the “pressure” on the hospital, their wards were discharged and later lodged in the sub-jail. Affidavits filedWhen the matter came up, counter affidavits were filed by D. Muralisundaram, Inspector of Police, Esplanade, and T.P. Kalaniti, Dean, General Hospital. In the affidavit, the Dean submitted that a committee, comprising specialists, had been constituted to plan, supervise and assess the treatment given to the students. The committee members examined the patients everyday and sent reports to the Dean. Bharathi Kannan was discharged on December 12, and Arumugam the next day, after they were declared “fit for treatment as outpatient as certified by the medical team.” Ulterior motiveThe Inspector submitted that the writ petitions had been filed with ulterior motive to hamper investigation and cast aspersions on investigating officials. After the arrest and remand of the accused, there was no need for the investigating agency to pressurise the Dean to discharge the students. ‘Facts’ concealedDuring arguments, the petitioners’ senior counsel, Rupert J. Barnabas, submitted that the authorities had concealed material facts. Dr. Karunakaran, who had not given treatment and was not part of the specialists committee, had made the discharge.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|