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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more