The Supreme Court today has adjourned its hearing in a plea preferred by Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd questioning the adequacy of one-member Commission of Inquiry led by former Justice A. Arumughaswamy to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the demise of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa.
Before the Apex Court, the petitioner M/s Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd challenged the disposal of its plea by the Madras High Court which had opined,
“that the commission can only offer its opinion to the Government for its mind, with respect to the nature of treatment given by it on the basis of oral and documentary evidence-whether such treatment was adequate or not.”
Today, the matter was listed before the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari which has adjourned the matter.
On 26.04.2019, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the plea filed by Apollo Hospital and stayed the further proceedings before Justice A. Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry, under the G.O. Ms. No. 817 dated 25.09.2017 and G.O. Ms. No 829 dated 27.09.2017.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd had moved Madras High Court by way of two writ petitions and sought directions to grant of writ of mandamus challenging the proceedings, findings and recording of evidence before the one-member Commission of Inquiry (Second Respondent) pursuant to the GO and a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the second respondent from causing an inquiry into findings relating to the correctness, adequacy and inadequacy of medical treatment given to late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (J. Jayalalithaa) in contravention of the provisions of The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 and Rules framed thereunder violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
As per the facts mentioned in the order of the Madras High Court, the petitioner hospital is a super-speciality hospital where the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (J. Jayalalithaa) was admitted due to medical issues and was provided with the best medical attention by the hospital staff. In addition, at the request of the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu), the Central government deputed a team of six doctors from AIIMS to observe the Tamil Nadu CM.
On December 4, 2016, she suffered a massive cardiac arrest and was immediately connected to Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) to revive her heartbeat. However, even this attempt was in vain, and the ECMO support was terminated. Thus, in spite of the best treatment provided, the Chief Minister of the State took her last breath on December 5, 2016 at 11.30 p.m. Following her death, there was widespread discussion among the general public about whether the petitioner hospital provided adequate treatment.
Also Read: National Green Tribunal says its disappointed with non-responsiveness of Delhi Jal Board
To put a stop to the conjecture, the Health Secretary of the Tamil Nadu government issued a press release assuring the public that the petitioner hospital provided the finest treatment possible to the deposed Chief Minister. However, after passing of nine months of the demise of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Government Tamil Nadu appointed the second respondent to cause an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the demise of the Chief Minister of the State.
During the course of the investigation, the second respondent asked some extraneous and unreasonable questions. The petitioner before the High Court adamantly contended that the second respondent is not qualified to judge or arbitrate the quality or nature of the therapy provided.
The High Court had noted,
“Upon considering the rival contentions made with respect to the plea of bias, we could infer from the records that the petitioner had mainly projected certain instances that had taken place during the inquiry proceedings such as:- (i) the nature of questions posed by the Commission during the deposition of the Doctors (ii) the refusal on the part of the second respondent commission to adjourn the inquiry proceedings at the instance of the petitioner hospital (iii) furnishing information to the press and media regarding the inquiry proceedings directly from the e-mail address of the commission thereby tarnishing the image and reputation of the hospital (iv) various orders passed by the commission implicating the petitioner hospital, either directly or indirectly and (vi) the proceedings conducted by the second respondent in filing a counter by itself before itself and thereby converting the inquiry proceedings into a lis.”
With respect to the first instance, the High Court opined that the second respondent (One Member Commission) is empowered to conduct the proceedings in a manner the commission desires. “At the best, it cannot be said that the Commission had wantonly to harass the witnesses had put some question much to the inconvenience of the witness. The posing of questions to the witnesses were in good faith to ascertain certain information from them and it cannot be construed as an attempt on the part of the second respondent to prejudice the witnesses. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the witnesses were wantonly, wilfully and deliberately harassed by the second respondent during the course of inquiry proceedings,” it held.
Also Read: Supreme Court allows transfer of judges under P&H HC, Allahabad HC hearing MPMLA cases
As regard second aspect, the High Court accepted the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent,
“That since the second respondent is obliged to submit its final report in a time bound manner to the government, in order to swiftly conclude the inquiry proceedings and to streamline the inquiry proceedings, adjournments were refused on some occasion, however, the request made by the petitioner hospital were largely accepted and adjournments were granted.”
“Even assuming that merely because adjournments were granted by the Commission at the instance of the third respondent, the inquiry proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated,” it said.
Further it had held that, “Even though several other averments have been made by the petitioner institution to demonstrate that the inquiry proceedings are actuated by malice or biased, we are not inclined to consider the same in these writ petitions.”
The High Court had also depreciated the practice adopted by the second respondent commission in filing an application through its counsel before itself or in filing a counter statement for the application filed by the petitioner hospital before itself and called it an innocuous and strange procedure.
The High Court further stated that,
“The second respondent, in our opinion, could have avoided adopting such a procedure in filing an application before itself. Instead, it could have suo motu passed certain order to either implead a particular person or to do any other acts or things in relation to the inquiry proceedings instead of filing an application before itself. We wish to observe that the petitioner hospital had subjected itself to the inquiry proceedings without any hesitation and cooperated for the inquiry.”