The hospital said the questions framed for the medical witnesses were factually incorrect and prejudiced.
Chennai: The Madras high court has directed the Justice A. Arumughaswamy commission of inquiry to file its counter affidavit to a petition filed by M/s Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited, which sought to quash the proceedings before the commission relating to the correctness and adequacy or inadequacy of medical treatment given to then Chief Minister late J. Jayalalithaa.
A division bench comprising Justices R. Subbiah and Krishnan Ramaswamy gave the directive and posted to February 15, hearing of the petition filed by Apollo Hospitals which also sought to stay the proceedings before the commission.
According to Apollo Hospitals, nine months after the demise of Jayalalithaa, the state government had appointed the one-member commission headed by Justice Arumughaswamy, a retired judge of the Madras high court, to inquire into the circumstances and situations leading to the hospitalisation of Jayalalitha and treatment provided to her till her death on December 5, 2016.
The hospital said it submitted copies and originals of 30 volumes of medical records. As many as 55 doctors along with 11 nurses, six technicians, dietician and executives and support staff had personally deposed before the commmission.
The hospital said the scope of the inquiry was limited to gathering facts on the circumstances and situation leading to Jayalalitha’s hospitalisation and treatment. It was not to go into the efficacy, correctness and adequacy or inadequacy of treatment. The facts and circumstances were to be forwarded to the state government. What was to be a simple inquiry with a timeframe of 90 days had devolved into a roving inquiry with no direction, the hospital added.
The hospital said the questions framed for the medical witnesses were factually incorrect and prejudiced. The inquiry lacked impartiality and objectivity and was vitiated by prejudice, predetermined and baseless conclusions, it alleged.
There has been grave error in recording the depositions, which will lead to misinterpretations and misconceptions about not just the treatment but the tenets of medical science. The answers stated by the medical witnesses were selectively recorded by the commission, which has resulted in complete misinterpretation of medical facts, the hospital claimed.
Doctors were concerned that the statements disjointedly and randomly recorded could be easily misconstrued. The commission refused to delete the sentences objected to by the witnesses. It was apparent that their role in the medical treatment of the late CM was viewed by the commission as participation in a larger conspiracy to deliver inadequate medical treatment, it claimed.