VIJAY KAPUR Vs. NEELAM KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Public Witness .2, Dr. D.M. Shreshta, Junior Resident, AIIMS, Deptt. of Psychiatry, stated that the respondent was admitted in the hospital on 11.2.1980 and discharged on 21.3.1980. She was under his treatment for the entire period. At the time of discharge, his diagnosis was schizophrenia (catatonic). All the progress report and treatment report has been written by him. Schizophrenia is a mental disease. The disease can relapse if the patient does not continue the treatment. As per his record she had suffered some sort of mental disease even prior to this about four or five years back. In cross-examination, he stated that besides him, there is a senior doctor by the name of Dr. Anandi Lal, M.D. The diagnosis of the junior doctor is shown to the senior doctor and if the senior doctor agrees the treatment is started. According to him, in the present case, the senior doctor had not differed with his opinion. He further stated that there are four or five types of Schizophrenia, the one from which the respondent was suffering was catatonic which means there are all the symptoms of abnormal behaviour, disorder of thinking and disorder of emotion and gradual deterioration in the social behaviour. When the respondent was brought to him, she was in acute stage. He further stated that there are more serious kinds of schizophrenia like paranoid, hebephrenic and simple. The schizophrenia catatonic is curable if the patient is treated very early and does not have many relapses. He admitted that the respondent was treated at the early stage i.e. on the second attack of illness. He was unable to tell exactly regarding the illness at the earlier occasion. According to him, the respondent had improved but he could not say if the improvement was remarkable. After the discharge he found that some times her mood was not appropriate and her talk was irrelevant but gradually she improved. While explaining the gradual improvement he stated that he did not find any disturbance of thinking, emotion and gradual deterioration in social behaviour of the patient. He opined that when these symptoms disappear from the patient, the patient becomes normal. On 10.4.1980 when the respondent came up for follow up he found her loosening of association which means irrelevant talk, incongruency i.e. inappropriate emotion and after that he did not see her because there was strike of doctors. On 8.5.1980, the respondent was examined by Dr. Chawla after her discharge. He could not say if the remarks and his observations disappear in the report of Dr. Mrs. Chawla, but he could not find them in her report. He admitted that a doctor treating the patient subsequently keeps in view the previous report and diagnosis. The report dt. 29.5.1980 is in the hand of Dr. Mrs. Chawla wherein it is recorded that the patient is completely normal.

(2.) Public Witness .3 is Dr. S. Dayal from the Deptt. of Psychiatry, Willingdon Hospital, He brought the record of E.C.T. of the month of May, 1974 pertaining to the respondent. According to the record, the respondent was given E.C.T. which is given for schizophrenia, acute mania and suicidal cases. He also brought the O.P.D. slip dt. 25.5.1982 of the hospital pertaining to the respondent. Therein she was diagnosed as per record slip for schizophrenia. In cross-examination, he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the respondent and he did not treat her. He also could not say as to what kind of schizophrenia the respondent was suffering from. He stated that in their hospital they do not use the term 'curable' for a patient of schizophrenia, but use the term "free from symptoms". He however, could not tell from the record whether the patient was free from all these symptoms but he gave the dates when E.C.T. was given to the respondent ( -).

(3.) Public Witness .4 is Dr. R.C. Jindal, Head of the Deptt. of Psychiatry, Safdarjang Hospital. He only produced the slip of the respondent, wherein no diagnosis is mentioned. He stated that the medicines prescribed could have been prescribed for any of the several mental disorders. In cross-examination, he stated that the respondent was an out-door patient and was not admitted in the Department. He was unable to say from the prescription as to for which specific disease the respondent was suffering and whether the said disease was curable or not.