The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reinstated a Civil Judge, who was suspended following a complaint filed by the Uri Bar Association, on humanitarian grounds.

The High Court on July 23 revoked the suspension of the order of Judge Imtiyaz Ahmad Lone, while taking into account the serious health issues being faced by the Civil Judge.

“The Full Court, after taking into account the serious ailment of Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed Lone, the then Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Sub-Judge, Uri and purely on humanitarian ground, is pleased to revoke the suspension order of the officer,” reads the order signed by Registrar General Jawad Ahmad.

It was also clarified that Lone shall be paid full salary from the date of his reinstatement.

He was posted at Srinagar Wing of the High Court against the Leave Reserve post of Civil Judge (Senior Judge). After a complaint was lodged against Lone by the Bar Association, Uri, the Full Court on December 31, 2020, suspended him.

Also Read: Supreme Court refuses to entertain Gautam Gambhir plea challenging Delhi HC order over oxygen, medicine hoarding

In another development, the Uttarakhand High Court recently reinstated the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, who was placed under suspension for allegedly using private vehicles belonging to an accused Chandra Mohan Sethi, for travelling purposes.

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a woman’s complaint against a doctor and a hospital for alleged medical negligence during her treatment of Koch’s spine, also known as tuberculosis of the spine.

The bench, presided by the Justice R.K. Agarwal, President and Dr S.M. Kanitkar, Member, of the National Commission held: “In our considered view, the patient was suffering from severe back ache and based on X-ray and MRI investigations there was no evidence of TB of the spine. Therefore, laminectomy (a type of surgery in which part or all of the vertebral bone (lamina) is removed to ease pressure on the spinal cord) was performed by the doctor. There was no negligence while conducting the surgery. Detection of Koch’s spine after six months has no nexus with the laminectomy. The observations of District Forum and the State Commission are erroneous, wherein no negligence could be attributed to the treating doctor.”

However, the Consumer Forum has asked the hospital to pay Rs 50,000 as an ex-gratia amount to the complainant on humanitarian grounds, considering the facts and the suffering of the patient.

The complaint was filed by the woman against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, where the State Commission modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Krishna District, Vijayawada, reducing the compensation from Rs 3,00,000 to Rs 50,000.

The complainant moved to the District Commission alleging medical negligence on part of the doctor and the hospital/SVR Neuro & Trauma Super Specialty, wherein she was directed to undergo surgery for her back pain. But her back pain continued even after the surgery. Consequently she was admitted to another hospital, Dr Samaram’s Hospital, complaining of swelling on the back and a burning sensation. There she was advised to consult a neurosurgeon. After consultation with the doctor she was diagnosed with ‘Cold Abscesses caused due to TB of Spine’. Dr Shankar Rao drained out the pus and the patient got some relief. Later she was referred to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad where TB of the spine was diagnosed and she was undergoing treatment.

In her plea she had contended that the hospital hurriedly performed the surgery without conducting necessary tests to diagnose the TB. She had further alleged that she suffered prolonged and continuous pain for more than nine months and was bed ridden for several months with mental agony. The district commission allowed her plea and directed the doctor and hospital to pay Rs 3,00,000 which was later reduced to Rs 50,000 by the State Commission. Ultimately, when she moved the NCDRC against the order of the State Commission, her plea was dismissed by the National Consumer Fora.

Read Also: CBSE, ICSE Class 12 results: Boards place formula to calculate results before Supreme Court

The commission concluded that the “Complainant failed to prove that she was suffering from Koch’s spine at the time of admission (May 2004). Secondly after laminectomy as per standard surgical practice, it is not mandatory to send the disc material for histo-pathological examination (HPE). The operating surgeon shall decide it on the basis of clinical surgical findings whether there is any need for HPE. We do not think it was neither a failure in standard duty of care nor deficiency in treatment. The complainant’s allegation is not sustainable.”

Further in its observation the commission also concluded that, “we have gone through the medical literature on Diagnosis and Treatment of Tuberculosis, the medical text book “Toman’s Tuberculosis” and the “Tuberculosis of the Skeletal System” by S.M.Tuli. The ESR is a non-specific test and has a prognostic value. There are several reasons for increase in ESR like old age, anaemia, chronic diseases, polymyalgia and Rheumatoid arthritis, etc. For the confirmed diagnosis of TB it is necessary to detect Mycobacterium TB in microscopy or cultures or by immunological tests. We note the NIMS have not conducted any immunological tests to diagnose TB.”

Source ILNS

New Delhi (ILNS): The Delhi High Court today took up the case of jail inmates misusing the court’s order of bail during Covid, granted on humanitarian grounds. The court also issued notice in an application seeking modification of its earlier order extending the interim bail of those prisoners till October 31.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh directed the jail authorities to submit the latest data on number of COVID-19 positive inmates in jail and number of inmates out on interim bail. 

The plea has been filed by advocate Amit Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the Delhi riots, stating that a trial court has noted that the order providing interim bail to inmates amid COVID-19 is being misused by the inmates.

Prasad submitted that the accused are seeking interim bail on humanitarian grounds instead of regular bail in the cases under section 302 of IPC and are getting a regular extension of the same.

Read Also: Petition in Supreme Court wants guidelines for online classes to prevent hackers

The bench has allowed time to the state to file data on the number of COVID-19 positive inmates in jail and the number of inmates out on bail and has further directed the Director General (Prison) to be present before the court on the next date of hearing.

The bench will be hearing the matter on October 16.

-ILNS