Fake med certificate: HC upholds doc’s suspension
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld disciplinary action by the Tamil Nadu Medical Commission (TNMC) against a doctor by removing his name from the medical register.
The doctor had allegedly issued a fake medical certificate regarding the condition of a patient to register the latter’s properties in the name of the doctor’s son-in-law, who is none other than the son of the patient.
The first bench of Chief Justice MN Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthi passed the orders on dismissing a writ appeal filed by Dr S Radhakrishnan. The appellant challenged the order of a single judge dated January 19, confirming the action of the TNMC.
After examining the materials and evidence, the bench concluded that the doctor/appellant has issued a fraudulent medical certificate to register the properties worth above Rs 50 crore.
“Pitchaimani was not in a position to comprehend what was the time, in which place he was there and who the person, namely, Sub-Registrar was. The very fact that he could not even sign and only his left thumb impression is taken on every page of the document, that too in a manner as if it is not made by the same person, but, with the help of another in awkward and reverse directions, categorically demonstrates that he was disoriented,” Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held.
When the matter was taken up for hearing, the appellant alleged that he was not provided with a chance to cross-examine the doctor named Basu Mani who treated the doctor of a city-based private hospital and submitted a contradictory statement before the TNMC which made the disciplinary committee to initiate action against the appellant. The appellant termed it against natural justice.
However, the judges rejected the claim that natural justice is not a straitjacket formula.
The case of the appellant was that he had issued a medical certificate about the condition of a patient, Pitchumani, in 2015 saying he was conscious and oriented on October 8, 2015. He furnished the certificate before sub-registrar Neelankarai and executed a settlement deed of 19 of the properties of the patient in favour of one P Sakthivel, who is the son-in-law of the appellant and son of the petitioner. The registration details were documented as if the patient granted his consent at his home. However, on the said date, the patient was on a ventilator.