Doctors must be cautious while giving medical certificates for bail; should explain medical jargon in simple language: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that sketchy, wishy-washy medical documents from any random private doctor to secure bail would not be entertained in future and the same would be "viewed seriously with suspicion" (Himanshu Dabas vs State).

. The Court emphasized that giving questionable documents is an offence under Section 192 IPC, advising doctors to be more cautious while giving medical certificates for the purposes of submitting them as evidence before a court of law.

. The Court also stated that the status reports filed by the jail doctors in bail matters should be explicit and explain complex medical terms in simple language and not just in medical jargon.

. The doctors preparing the status reports must clearly give their final impression and opinion as to whether the condition is likely benign/malignant/infective and if it warrants any urgency/emergency, the Court added.

. The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad while dealing with a matter concerning "sketchy medical reports" given by the jail authorities at the time of granting bail.

. As per the Court, the medical reports filed by the Jail Superintendents, based on which interim bail was granted to the accused by the trial court, were not clear and the medical terms which were used were not easily decipherable by judges.

. In the present case, the accused was granted interim bail on the ground that his medical report showed "Right-sided gynecomastia" or enlargement of male breasts, and piles apart from diabetes and blood pressure.

. While the Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology conducted by the jail hospital stated that the accused had a simple case of gynecomastia, the accused in his bail application before the trial court claimed that he had a "chest tumour, which is making his breathing difficult and which can turn into a cancer".

. The Court noted the element of ambiguity in the report.

"..the medical report set to the same ought to have clarified that there is no tumour or malignancy as that operation was only for mere cosmetic purpose and not a medical emergency. Absence of such a clarification in a medical report does not assist the Court, rather the report conceals vital information from the Court... The term 'uncontrollable' has been used for the hypertension, but at no time was any of the Blood Pressure (BP) recording seems to be so. If so, why were these terms used? Also, the haemorrhoids, hypertension and diabetes all these conditions can be medically treated by the jail hospital," the order said.

. In the present case, the Court also suspected foul play and lack of good faith as the post-surgery report of the accused mentioned 'removal of tumour' when there was none.

. " A serious note is taken of such skimpy, wishy-washy medical documentation and the licence of such doctors should be cancelled if found to be lacking/falsely done.

Advantage is being taken of the fact that Judges are not medical experts and are therefore unable to correctly appreciate the nature of the ailments. The accused try to get their bail extended even though they are not suffering from any serious ailments which require them to be released on interim bail.

All this reeks of several lacunae at several levels including the medical personnel both at the level of jail hospital and the private doctor's level, " the Court stated.

. While refraining from taking any action in the present case as the accused had already surrendered, the Court observed that whenever medical reports create suspicion in the mind of a judge, the same ought to be sent for scrutiny by a Medical Board consisting of two-three specialists from a government hospital and action must be taken.

. [Read Order]

Doctors must be cautious while giving medical certificates for bail; should explain medical jargon in simple language: Delhi High Court

Aditi

Related Stories