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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more