One of the lawyers for the Commission of Inquiry looking into the death of Jayalalithaa has in a petition before the panel said that the former Chief Minister’s health deteriorated due to the failure of Apollo Hospitals to perform an angiogram.
“The medical evidence adduced so far against Respondent No. 2 namely Apollo Hospital, clearly established the fact that the Apollo Hospital failed to provide Angio treatment in spite of the fact that three senior doctors hailing from various hospitals have suggested such a course,” according to a four-page petition filed before the one-man Justice A. Arumughaswamy (Retd.) Commission on December 27 by standing counsel Mohd. Jafarullah Khan.
Mr. Khan, recently appointed as the second standing counsel of the Commission, wanted Health Secretary J. Radhakrishnan and former Chief Secretary P. Rama Mohana Rao to be impleaded as respondents before the Commission.
As of now, V.K. Sasikala and Chairman of Apollo Hospitals are the two respondents before the Commission, having been served with notices under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Copies of the petition have been served to lawyers representing Sasikala and Apollo Hospitals.
Mr. Khan alleged that Sasikala and Apollo conspired with regard to the former Chief Minister’s treatment: “Thus, it is clear that failure to take angio test or angiogram in time has led to deterioration of her health, which is suggestive of collusion between Respondent No. 1 and 2 in the matter of treatment of former Chief Minister. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence in this regard.”
Theory of death
The Commission’s lawyer also suggested that Jayalalithaa suffered brain death shortly after her December 4, 2016 cardiac arrest and ahead of her declared time of death on December 5.
“One of the doctors, who commenced stenetomy (sic) stated clearly in his evidence that while doing stenotomy, CPR was not done nearly for 15 minutes. No need to say if blood circulation does not occur for 3 minutes, automatically brain death will happen. Hence, it is also proved by other doctors’ evidence, what other unfortunate things that had happened after this,” says the petition. Mr. Khan was presumably referring to sternotomy, which was performed on Jayalalithaa after her cardiac arrest so that she could be connected to an ECMO machine.
According to Mr. Khan, the Health Secretary made contradictory statements before the Commission. He said Mr. Radhakrishnan had informed the Commission that he was against taking Jayalalithaa abroad for treatment, “as he felt that it is a disgrace for doctors of the entire India.” Mr. Khan adds that the Health Secretary failed to appreciate that the welfare of the patient was paramount. The petitioner then goes on to say that despite the Health Secretary’s endorsement to Indian doctors, multiple medical professionals were consulted during the treatment of Jayalalithaa.
“While so it is apparent that the evidence of the Health Secretary is not only contradictory, but also suggestive of conspiracy and collusion between the Health Secretary and Apollo Hospital with regard to the inappropriate treatment of the late Chief Minister. At times, he speaks like spokesman of the Apollo hospital, which speaks volume to the collusion and inaction in the matter of treatment of late Chief Minister,” says the petition.
When contacted, Mr. Radhakrishnan said that he was not aware of the petition as he had not been served a copy. “I am duty-bound to answer the questions of the Commission if I am asked. I have done that in the past and will do so in the future, when I appear for cross-examination on January 4, 2019,” he said.
False evidence
Mr. Khan, who retired as a district judge, told the Commission that Mr. Rao “purposely” gave “false evidence.” He then goes on to recommend that the Commission take action against Mr. Rao under Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Section 5(2) of the Act says that the individuals are legally bound to provide information to the Commission if the latter thinks it is useful or relevant to its inquiry. Disclosures of this nature are subject to the scrutiny provided by sections 176 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 177 says that those who provide false information wilfully to a public servant can be punished with a simple imprisonment of up to six months or be fined up to ₹1000, or both.
He said Mr. Rao had told the Commission that he had intimated the government that he had, along with Sasikala, signed on nearly 20 consent forms to enable various medical procedures to be performed on the former Chief Minister. “Whereas the present Chief Secretary has replied and categorically stated that no such letter has been received on 27.11.2016….From this, it is very clear former Chief Secretary had purposely given false evidence before the Commission,” according to the petition.
When contacted, Mr. Rao said he was not aware of the petition.
