On Monday, the Delhi High Court observed that the medical reports that are filed by the jail doctors should be clear and explain the complex medical terms that are used not only in medical waffles but in simple language also. The Court also stated that such medical reports should clearly mention the history, findings of the examination, clinical diagnosis along with its interpretation in simpler terms so that it can assist the judges and the Court in an operative manner. The Court advised the doctors to be cautious while yielding medical certificates for the purposes of submitting them as evidence in the court of law.

A single judge bench included Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that any "sketchy medical documents" from any random private doctor who has an ambiguous and incomplete document with illegible handwriting won’t be entertained by the Court henceforth.

The Court also stated that in case any effort made by doubtful private doctors to prolong for indefinite periods or use false excuse by taking help of unambiguous medical documents and sketchy medical reports, will be guilty of an offence under sec. 192 of the Indian Penal Code for "fabricating false evidence".

This observation came in one case which has challenged the bail being granted to an accused on medical grounds because of the "sketchy medical reports" given by jail authorities in granting bail. It was found that the medical reports filed by the Jail Superintendents were not clear and the medical terms used were not easily understandable by Judges. The Reports did not bring out the correct picture and incomplete reports were given by hospitals and doctors for using it as a grant for bail or extension of bail.

The accused person was granted interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge after the submission of his medical condition that he suffered from several ailments and due to the critical tumour in the chest he was able to breathe properly.

The Court will now consider the two medical reports dated 4th November’20 and 23rd November’20, the Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) that was conducted by the jail hospital. It showed that it was the simple case of gynecomastia and there was no tumour and the same should have been clarified in the medical report, which was not done. Absence of such clarification in a medical report does not support the Court, rather the report is hiding the most important information from the Court. 

The court observed that the doctors who are preparing the Status Reports should clearly give the final impression and their opinion whether the medical condition requires any urgency or emergency. Also, the Status Report must clearly state if the medical condition of the patient is benign or malignant or infective and state plainly whether surgery is required for that specific medical condition or not.

In case, the patient is being referred to a referral hospital, then such reports should mention the diagnosis in simple interpretation, whether the disease is treatable or an emergency surgery and any investigation is required to be done in the jail hospital.

The Court further stated that many times advantage is taken of the fact that Judges are not medical experts and are unable to correctly understand the nature of the ailments. The accused then try to get bail extended even though he or she is not suffering from any serious conditions that requires them to be released on interim bail.

Source: LiveLow.in