Doctors’ conflicting reports under HC lens

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 31

A case of contradictory reports by doctors on the nature of an injury has surfaced before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Two doctors have given contradictory opinions on the seriousness of an injury. While one of the doctors said the injury was not life threatening, the other was of the opinion that it was “dangerous to life”.

Taking up the matter, Justice Rajan Gupta of the High Court made it clear that both doctors were required for certain clarifications. Justice Gupta also directed the High Court Registrar General to forward a copy of the order to the PGI Director forthwith.

The developments took place on a petition filed by Balwinder Singh against the state of Punjab. The court was told that serious injuries were caused on the head of the applicant, Balwinder Singh, in an incident that took place on January 9, 2014.

Balwinder Singh was examined by Dr Deepak AN, Senior Resident, Department of Neurosurgery, PGI, Chandigarh, after he was taken to the institute with injuries. He was also subjected to a CT scan. “It appears that the doctor stated in the cross-examination that the injury was grievous in nature but not dangerous to life,” 

Justice Gupta observed after going through the documents placed on record.

Justice Gupta went on to observe that a medico-legal expert, Dr Karamjit Singh, on the other hand, deposed that the injury was dangerous to life. After going through the bed head ticket of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, and PGI reports, the doctor was of the opinion that the impact of the wound on the forehead was so deep that patient was unconscious and the CT findings showed high-density fluid collection. 

“Multiple fractures of skull, along with sub-dural haemorrhage, are dangerous to life. So injury number one is dangerous to life,” the doctor had added.

Before parting with the order, Justice Gupta directed: “In view of the conflicting opinion of two doctors and medical terminology used in their deposition, both are required for certain clarifications as also to instruct the state counsel to enable him to assist the court.” The case will now come up just before the summer vacation.