Skip to main content

Doctors avoiding appearance in court can be coerced: Kerala HC

Coercive means can be adopted to enforce attendance of doctors in courts to give evidence if they fail to turn up despite receiving summons, said the Kerala high court.

The issue of doctors not appearing in courts to support medical evidence came up before a single bench of the high court while considering a petition related to an assault on a couple from Kattiparuthi in Tirur.

In a complaint filed by Beeran Kutty before the Tirur judicial first class magistrate, it was alleged that an eight-member gang of persons known to him trespassed into his house at 8.30am on December 6, 2002 and assaulted him and his wife. The couple suffered serious injuries and underwent treatment in a hospital, the complaint had said.

Police conducted an investigation and concluded that it was a false case. However, the petitioner filed a protest complaint before the magistrate court and adduced evidence. In order to prove that he suffered injuries, the petitioner took steps to summon the investigating officer of Valanchery police station to produce and prove the original wound certificate available in the case diary.

The move to summon the police officer was not allowed by the magistrate court, ruling that it is not needed to prove the wound certificate. This order was challenged in the high court.

Considering the case, justice S Siri Jagan held, "If the petitioner wanted to prove the wound certificate, the petitioner could have very well summoned the concerned doctor who issued the same and the accident-register cum wound-certificate kept in the hospital. The petitioner submits that the petitioner took steps to summon the doctor and the doctor did not appear. Even if that is correct, the petitioner is not without remedy insofar as he can enforce attendance of the doctor before the court by coercive means which the petitioner has not done."

Upholding the magistrate's denial of permission to summon the police officer, the high court held, "As rightly pointed out by the learned magistrate, summoning of the investigating officer and the wound certificate will not in any way help the petitioner to prove the wound certificate."

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-15/kochi/46223398_1_high-court-petitioner-case-diary

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more