RABINARAYAN NANDA Vs. TARAPRASAD BAHINIPATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Misc. Case filed under Order 18 Rule -3A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the instance of the Election petitioner seeking a relief for permitting him to depose at a later stage as he is undisposed of for his serious ailment and suffering from Grade -II Hypertension with Angina and Lungs Infection and also for permission for recording of evidence of one Sukanta Kumar Tripathy as P.W. 1 ahead of the evidence of the Election petitioner. The Election petitioner in support of his claim, filed a medical certificate issued by the Sub -divisional Medical Officer, Jeypore in the district of Koraput and also a prescription issued by the very same Medical Officer, both attached to the Misc. Case No. 4 of 2015. Election petitioner justifies his claim in view of his serious ailment and particularly keeping in view the advisory given by the S.D.M.O. in the Medical Certificate as well as in the prescription attached therein. The respondent No. 1, i.e., the opposite party in the present Misc. Case on his appearance filed objection to the said Misc. Case seriously disputing the stand taken by the Election petitioner with regard to his ailment. In filing the objection, the respondent No. 1, i.e., opposite party to the Misc. Case contended that the Sub -divisional Medical Officer, Jeypore being a Gynecologist is not competent enough to grant the enclosed Medical certificate in respect of ailments as mentioned therein. Further in view of the diseases indicated in the Medical Certificate, the Sub -divisional Medical Officer, who is a Gynecologist is also otherwise not competent to advise complete bed rest in such matters. The respondent No. 1 further also contended that from the medicines appearing in the prescription in support of the Election petitioner on 25.01.2015, cannot be prescribed by the S.D.M.O. for lacking such qualification. It appears that the S.D.M.O., who is merely a Gynecologist is not competent to prescribe such medicines and as such the opposite party No. 1 claimed that the Medical Certificate as well as the prescription have been procured from a incompetent doctor unauthorizedly, with ill motive only to mislead the Court and a deliberate act in connivance with the S.D.M.O. Opposite party No. 1 also further submitted that in spite of there being an advisory to the Election petitioner to take bed rest, he appeared in a meeting at the instance of the Ruling Party, i.e. Biju Janata Dal taking place at Sunabeda in presence of the Chief Minister, Odisha and other party functionaries of the Ruling Biju Janata Dal immediately after such advisory. The opposite party No. 1 has also contended that during such period, the petitioner also addressed various media houses on several occasions on the issues relating to Jayant Natarajan's statement as reported in several websites and journals.

(2.) THE Election petitioner in response to the above objection of the opposite party No. 1 filed a rejoinder in Court today indicating therein that the S.D.M.O. being Head of the Hospital was competent enough to examine patient like petitioner and while advising the petitioner for taking necessary medicines in the prescription, the said S.D.M.O. had also advised the petitioner to take consultation of a Medicine Specialist as appearing at the left side of the prescription appended to the Misc. Case. The Election petitioner also further submitted that while applying for being examined at a later stage, he had brought a witness to be examined as P.W. 1 on his behalf and not only that he had also filed his evidence on "oath" of P.W. 1 in the Court but also on the said date, the election case was postponed to another date only for the request of the opposite party No. 1 for filing an objection to the application of the petitioner and claimed that his request in the application was bona fide. Thus, while submitting that since his witness was ready and the evidence of the first witness on "oath" was already filed, it cannot be alleged that the Election petitioner attempting for delay in the trial of the Election case. Further on the objection of the opposite party No. 1, on the question that the election petitioner is fit enough to attend the meeting taking place at Sunabeda in the presence of the Chief Minister, Odisha. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Election petitioner submitted that the Election petitioner attended the said meeting, which was taking place at a distance of only 44 Kms. from his resident and he attended the said meeting with all medical support but since the election case was taking place at Cuttack at a distance of 550 Kms. from the place of his residence, he was ill at the relevant point of time and thus it was not possible on his part to undertake travel to such a distance. Further on the allegation of the S.D.M.O. being incompetent to undertake health check up of such patient and prescribing the medicines as appearing in the prescription learned senior counsel appearing for Election petitioner submitted that since the S.D.M.O. was the head of the hospital, he was competent enough to advise in the manner. Further because of his advice for a health check up of the petitioner through a Medicine Specialist, the election petitioner at a subsequent stage took advice of one Medicine Specialist Dr. Rabi Narayan Mishra at Jeypore and took medicines as per his advice.

(3.) NOW coming to the merit of the Misc. Case No. 4 of 2015, I find the Medical Certificate as well as prescription appended therein in the above Misc. Case were being issued by the Sub -divisional Medical Officer, Jeypore on 25.01.2015. From the said certificate, I also further find that there is advisory to the petitioner, on the premises of his illness in Grade -II Hypertension with Angina and Lungs Infection from 25.01.2015 for taking complete bed rest for a period of one and half month with effect from 25.01.2015 by the very S.D.M.O. From the prescription attached therein, I also find that the petitioner has been advised with some medicines, which relates Cardiac problems. There is no denial by the petitioner to the submission of the opposite party No. 1 that the said S.D.M.O. was merely a Gynecologist. I am of the view that S.D.M.O. being a Gynecologist under no circumstances, he could have treated a patient suffering from Group -II Hypertension with Angina and Lungs Infection, which are all Cardiac related. Further a Gynecologist is not event competent to prescribe the medicines related to Cardiac problem. Further from the Medical Certificate, it also appears that the patient, i.e., the Election petitioner submitted himself to the S.D.M.O. on 25.01.2015 on certain complaints and accepting the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the election petitioner that while giving said Medical Certificate, the S.D.M.O. had also advised the Election petitioner to take consultation of a Medicine Specialist nothing prevented the petitioner to get himself checked through a Medicine Specialist and produced prescription and Medical Certificate in the present case. Thus when the Election petitioner visited the concerned hospital on 25.01.2015 and if a Gynecologist found him illness in the Cardiac side and having advised him to take consultation of the Medicine Specialist, there was no occasion on the S.D.M.O.'s part even to prescribe the patient for bed rest for a period of one and half month. Further the S.D.M.O. was also not otherwise competent to prescribe in the manner contained in the prescription dated 25.01.2015. It is in this view of the matter, I am of the view that both the Medical Certificate as well as prescriptions are without competency and the submission with regard to health condition of the Election petitioner on the basis of such certificate cannot be entertained in the eye of law. Further coming to consider the response of the Election petitioner as submitted in the rejoinder that following the advisory of the S.D.M.O. the petitioner undertook the consultation of a Medicine Specialist, namely, Dr. Rabi Narayan Mishra as submitted in Para -(c) of the rejoinder, in the event, he had undertaken any such consultation from the above Medicine Specialists, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing any such document in proof of his such claim. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is found to be based on no valid material rather on false pretext.