The Madras High Court on Monday directed the State Government and Justice A. Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry to file their counter affidavits by Friday to writ petitions filed by Apollo Hospitals to restrain the Commission from inquiring into the correctness, adequacy or inadequacy of medical treatment provided to former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.
A Division Bench of Justices R. Subbiah and Krishnan Ramasamy said a decision on passing interim orders would be taken only after filing of the counter affidavits. In his preliminary arguments on Monday, Advocate General Vijay Narayan orally contended that the Commission was authorised to inquire into medical aspects too.
In its writ petitions, the hospital had also urged the High Court to appoint an independent medical board, comprising specialist doctors not associated with the State government, to probe issues pertaining to treatment provided to Jayalalithaa, if the court thought that the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry would also necessitate a probe into the treatment provided to her.
The reports of the medical board could be placed before the High Court in a time-bound manner, the hospital stated. In an affidavit filed in support of its first writ petition, the hospital said, Jayalalithaa could not survive despite being given the best possible medical treatment.
She was treated by a medical team consisting of highly qualified and specialist doctors who provided optimal and effective treatment. At no point of time either during her hospitalisation or immediately after the death, any concerns were raised regarding the efficacy or appropriateness of treatment provided to her, the hospital claimed.
In fact, the line of treatment was consistently validated by doctors from All India Institute of Medical Sciences and other external specialists. However, the State government ended up constituting the Commission of Inquiry about nine months after her death, it pointed out.
Contending that the reputation of the hospital was likely to be prejudicially affected due to the inquiry, the hospital said: “The examination in chief by the second respondent (Commission) has progressively become accusatorial questioning the integrity and even medical knowledge and competency of the medical witnesses of the petitioner.”
Stating that 55 doctors from close to 21 different specialities had so far deposed before the Commission, the hospital said, they found it a great challenge to explain the complexity of medical and scientific facts and protocols and procedures, adopted during the treatment, to the Commission of Inquiry which did not have the assistance of a team of qualified medical professionals.
It accused the Commission of “predetermining the liability of the hospital” and going beyond the scope of inquiry by conducting a case of medical negligence.
