Health officials refuse to provide information on suspicious postmortem reports

Health officials refuse to provide information on suspicious postmortem reports

S. Vijay Kumar

CHENNAI 26.08.2024

State health authorities have refused to disclose the identities of doctors who conducted postmortems in 57 medico-legal cases at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, wherein the reports were found to be nearly identical.

A petitioner, seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, on the action taken over suspected irregularities in the postmortem reports, claimed that his petition was being passed around between various medical authorities without a proper response.

‘Cut, copy, paste’

The issue pertains to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that came up before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2020. Referring to a report of Scientific Officers, the court noted that between April 1 and 15, 2019, 178 postmortems were conducted at the hospital. Of these, 57 reports suggested that they were produced using a “cut, copy, paste” method.

The Bench, comprising Justices K. Kirubakaran and S.S. Sundar, remarked that the postmortem certificates contained only minor variations. Additionally, closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage revealed that no measurements were taken from any of the bodies. “It is clear that all these 57 postmortem certificates were generated using a cut, copy, paste method,” it had said.

In May 2024, Raj Kapil, a criminology professor from Kanniyakumari district, filed an application under the RTI Act to know whether the State government had formed an inquiry commission to investigate the irregularities or the fraudulent issuance of postmortem certificates in the 57 cases. He also sought to know the identities of the doctors or police surgeons responsible for the certificates, and the action taken against them.

The Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services responded by forwarding the petition to the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, claiming that the information pertained to their office. However, the latter redirected the petition to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, under Section 6(3) of the Act. The petition continued to be transferred between authorities.

Later, the Public Information Officer at the hospital forwarded the petition to Madurai Medical College. Last month, Madurai Medical College responded that the queries pertained to the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Chennai. However, there was no indication that the petition had been referred to the appropriate authorities. In response to the question on the names and designations of those who issued the certificates, the Madurai Medical College cited Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, claiming that there was no provision to provide such details.

Dismayed at the response, Mr. Kapil said Section 8(h) typically applies in cases where disclosing an information could impede an investigation. “It is essential for citizens to know that action has been taken against the doctors involved. Moreover, identifying them will only aid in the investigation of criminal cases where the postmortem examinations were botched,” he said.