MUMBAI: In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has asked authorities to take legal action against a doctor for alleged negligence while conducting a post mortem examination of a body.
In this order, Justice Prithviraj K Chavan referred to a report of a committee that was constituted by the High Court in August 2023 to examine the post mortem report of a deceased. Interestingly, the order came to be passed in a bail application by Jaywant Bhoir, who along with three others had been accused of the death of one Mayur Bhoir.
The sessions court granted bail to the three co-accused but rejected Bhoir’s application. The petitioner had applied for bail before the High Court in 2021 after the Court had demanded the report from the postmortem doctor and the forensic science laboratory within eight weeks.
The petitioner withdrew his bail request from the High Court following this instruction.
Following the filing of the FSL report, the applicant went back to the High Court seeking bail.
He asserted that in his post mortem report, Dr. Phad had omitted to indicate the deceased's cause of death. It was reported that Dr. Phad held off on sharing that opinion because he was awaiting the FSL report, which never materialized.
After Court’s intervention, the District Civil Surgeon, District General Hospital, Thane, submitted a report to the Senior Police Inspector, Murbad Police Station on November 28, 2023. A committee was constituted by Civil Surgeon, Thane in order to give an opinion as regard the exact cause of death of the deceased.
This is what the committee’s report revealed:
• Dr. Phad had conducted the postmortem on 12th July, 2020, at Rural Hospital, Murbad. Viscera was preserved for forwarding the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thane.
• It appears that Dr. Phad had given his opinion on the letterhead of his private hospital though the postmortem was conducted at the Government Hospital. There is no report submitted by Dr. Phad from the official record which is kept at the Government Hospital.
• There was bleeding from the ears of the deceased. Rigor mortis (column No. 11) reveals that it was slightly present. Column No. 12 indicates decomposition slightly present, small maggots seen all over body which is self-contradictory. Dr. Phad did not fill up the Form properly through which the viscera was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. He did not forward samples of brain of the deceased. There are contradiction in the findings given in the postmortem report.
• The injuries mentioned in Column No. 17 of the postmortem report vis-a-vis the inquest panchanama do not match as the same have not been properly recorded.
The final cause of death as per MCCD is not proper.
• Forensic Science Laboratory viscera report indicates that the postmortem was done on July, 16, 2020 which is an incorrect date as postmortem was conducted on July 12, 2020.
Noting the several inconsistences and gross negligence, the Court directed for legal action to be taken against the doctor. The court has ordered the Secretary, Health to file a preliminary report in 4 weeks.
“The Secretary, Health, Government of Maharashtra as well as Commissioner of Police Thane are directed to take cognizance of the said report as well as the order passed by this Court and initiate an appropriate legal action against Dr. Phad and the concerned for such a gross negligence and illegality in conducting a postmortem of the deceased-Mohan Bhoir.”
The case will come up next on April 23.
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
