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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more