HC upholds action against doctor who discussed postmortem on TV - The Times Of India

HC upholds action against doctor who discussed postmortem on TV - The Times Of India

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:25 09.2020

Can a doctor discuss a postmortem report in a public forum like television debate? No, says the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, which has placed under suspension the practice licence of ace forensic medical expert V Dekal for a month.

When Dekal moved the Madras high court, Justice V Parthiban refused any interim relief to the doctor and said he should stay away from his practice for a month. The court directed the medical council to file a detailed counter by October 29.

It was medical council’s stand that a postmortem report is a confidential document and, therefore, accessing it unofficially and discussing the content in public forums is intrusion of privacy.

Representing the medical council, advocate G Shankaran submitted that Dekal, while participating in a programme in a private Tamil news channel, discussed the suspicious death of a woman near Chennai and said the postmortem certificate issued by the government hospital concerned was substandard with a lot of flaws.

He raised doubts on the postmortem certificate, without actually being part of the postmortem team or knowing the facts first hand, he added. The case discussed in the show is still under investigation and the postmortem report alleged to be flawed by him is a confidential document.

Accessing such confidential documents unofficially and discussing the content in public forums is an intrusion of privacy and is likely to affect the investigation and trial of the case, the council said.

“Blatant accusations of post-mortem report can cause unwarranted pressure on the affected family and all those involved. When the police investigations are on and the case is under the purview of our reputed judicial system, Dekal’s behaviour is an act uncalled for by a registered medical practitioner,” the council added.

Denying the allegations, Dekal submitted that he did not criticize the post-mortem certificate issued by the government doctor but just expressed his opinion that when so many qualified forensic experts are available in the nearby government Chengalpet Medical College, it should have been conducted there instead of the government hospital in Madurantakam

However, refusing to accept his explanation, the council passed an order suspending his licence to practise for one month.

When Dekal moved the Madras high court, Justice V Parthiban refused any interim relief to the doctor and said he should stay away from his practice for a month. The court has directed the medical council to file a detailed counter by October 29