PRASHANT RAHI NARAYAN SANGLIKAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Although learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed his doubt about the opinion given by treating doctor which is reflected in the latest affidavit filed by him i.e. Dr. Vineet Laxmikant Gupta and has, therefore, argued that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to have second opinion from reputed hospital at Nagpur which is run by Dr. Shrikant Mukewar, we find that there is nothing available on record from which any reasonable material can be found for doubting the correctness or otherwise of the opinion given by the treating doctor. The clinical and pathological tests as seen from the affidavit have been conducted and they show normal functioning of internal organs having main role in the digestive system of humans. To put it precisely, liver, pancreas and kidney have been shown to be functioning normally. The opinion further shows that doctor has diagnosed the cause of frequent loose motions which was experienced by the petitioner consistently for several months together in the recent past and has traced it to be indigestion suffered by the petitioner for which purpose some treatment has been prescribed by the treating doctor. With such opinion on record, which is supported by clinical and pathological examination reports, we do not think that there is anything which has remained to be done by this Court. Even the present health condition of the petitioner has been reported to be better. For these reasons, we are not inclined to accede to the request of learned counsel for the petitioner for he being referred to another hospital for getting the second opinion. At the same time, we may mention here that petitioner would be at liberty to consult another doctor through his relatives in the light of the latest opinion given by the present treating doctor and this can be done by the relatives of the petitioner on the basis of the copy of the opinion already furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forward one more point. He submits that in the present case, endoscopy and colonoscopy of the petitioner was necessary, which was not carried out by the treating doctor. However, it is pointed out by learned A.P.P., some tests were already carried out by the treating doctor and their results being normal, the treating doctor appears to have not considered it necessary to go for endoscopy and colonoscopy of the petitioner.