By PTI
NEW DELHI: In a weird growth, a physician of the Maulana Azad Medical College has been accused of illegally eradicating the cranium from the physique on which he carried out an post-mortem, prompting the establishment to bar him from conducting autopsy examinations.
The physician, a post-graduate scholar and junior resident, has approached the Delhi High Court, claiming the allegation was “devoid of merit and bereft of a single evidence” to substantiate the heinous claims even remotely.
The July 29 order issued by the Head of the Department (HOD) of Forensic Medicine of Maulana Azad Medical College, acknowledged the physician was “hereby barred from doing post mortem work with immediate effect after the complaint of indulging in the unethical practice of skull removal from the unknown body”.
The order mentioned the physician will likely be debarred from such responsibility until he deposits the “unethically removed skull” with the division, in any other case, it is going to be presumed he did it for “ulterior motives”.
Justice Yashwant Varma, whom the physician’s counsel appealed to put aside the order, mentioned the hospital’s directive didn’t quantity to punishment because it solely debarred the petitioner from endeavor autopsy work until the time the incident was enquired into.
Advocate Arun Panwar, showing for Maulana Azad Medical College, submitted that considering the seriousness of the incident, the faculty has already initiated an enquiry throughout which the petitioner shall be afforded due alternative of listening to and that topic to the results of the probe additional motion shall be taken.
“In view of the aforesaid and bearing in mind the fact that the enquiry is ongoing, the court disposes of the writ petition by observing that the respondent college shall ensure that principles of natural justice are duly adhered to and the material which is proposed to be relied upon in that enquiry is provided to the petitioner.”
“The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner gets an adequate opportunity to defend himself in the said proceedings. All contentions of respective parties, on merits, are kept open,” the court docket mentioned.
The petition says the autopsy was carried out on April 5, 2022 and the authorities later claimed the cranium was faraway from the physique by the petitioner.
The petitioner’s lawyer submitted 5 autopsy examinations had been carried out on the establishment that day wherein the petitioner participated.
Apart from him, different members of employees and staff had been current and subsequently the belief that it was the petitioner who was accountable for eradicating the cranium was “wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice”.
The petition claimed the physician neither acquired a duplicate of the criticism of his alleged involvement within the incident nor supplied with a chance to clarify the “misunderstanding”.
The plea mentioned the workplace order was prima facie “a work of fiction” based mostly upon unsubstantiated, spurious complaints in opposition to the petitioner who filed his illustration cum objection in opposition to the order to the authorities however they didn’t take cognisance.
The petitioner sought a route to the faculty to quash the workplace order and direct Delhi University to represent a committee to probe the incident.
NEW DELHI: In a weird growth, a physician of the Maulana Azad Medical College has been accused of illegally eradicating the cranium from the physique on which he carried out an post-mortem, prompting the establishment to bar him from conducting autopsy examinations.
The physician, a post-graduate scholar and junior resident, has approached the Delhi High Court, claiming the allegation was “devoid of merit and bereft of a single evidence” to substantiate the heinous claims even remotely.
The July 29 order issued by the Head of the Department (HOD) of Forensic Medicine of Maulana Azad Medical College, acknowledged the physician was “hereby barred from doing post mortem work with immediate effect after the complaint of indulging in the unethical practice of skull removal from the unknown body”.
The order mentioned the physician will likely be debarred from such responsibility until he deposits the “unethically removed skull” with the division, in any other case, it is going to be presumed he did it for “ulterior motives”.
Justice Yashwant Varma, whom the physician’s counsel appealed to put aside the order, mentioned the hospital’s directive didn’t quantity to punishment because it solely debarred the petitioner from endeavor autopsy work until the time the incident was enquired into.
Advocate Arun Panwar, showing for Maulana Azad Medical College, submitted that considering the seriousness of the incident, the faculty has already initiated an enquiry throughout which the petitioner shall be afforded due alternative of listening to and that topic to the results of the probe additional motion shall be taken.
“In view of the aforesaid and bearing in mind the fact that the enquiry is ongoing, the court disposes of the writ petition by observing that the respondent college shall ensure that principles of natural justice are duly adhered to and the material which is proposed to be relied upon in that enquiry is provided to the petitioner.”
“The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner gets an adequate opportunity to defend himself in the said proceedings. All contentions of respective parties, on merits, are kept open,” the court docket mentioned.
The petition says the autopsy was carried out on April 5, 2022 and the authorities later claimed the cranium was faraway from the physique by the petitioner.
The petitioner’s lawyer submitted 5 autopsy examinations had been carried out on the establishment that day wherein the petitioner participated.
Apart from him, different members of employees and staff had been current and subsequently the belief that it was the petitioner who was accountable for eradicating the cranium was “wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice”.
The petition claimed the physician neither acquired a duplicate of the criticism of his alleged involvement within the incident nor supplied with a chance to clarify the “misunderstanding”.
The plea mentioned the workplace order was prima facie “a work of fiction” based mostly upon unsubstantiated, spurious complaints in opposition to the petitioner who filed his illustration cum objection in opposition to the order to the authorities however they didn’t take cognisance.
The petitioner sought a route to the faculty to quash the workplace order and direct Delhi University to represent a committee to probe the incident.
