Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar ... vs Superintendent Central Prison ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13319 Bom

                                    1                     wp788.2022

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.788/2022
Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar,
aged 64 Yrs., Occ. Journalist,
R/o 87, Chandrashekhar Nagar,
Hrishikesh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand.                ...    Petitioner
      - Versus -
1. Superintendent, Central Prison,
    Amravati Central Prison, Jail
    Road Camp Area, Amravati,
    Maharashtra 444 602.
2.   State of Maharashtra,
     through Additional Chief Secretary,
     Home Ministry, having office at
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.                         ...   Respondents
            -----------------
Mr. Nihalsingh B. Rathod, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

            ----------------

            CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                    M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATE : 20.12.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2 wp788.2022

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 3 wp788.2022

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 4 wp788.2022

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.

4. Upon careful consideration of the opinion of the

treating doctor, we find that there is substance in the submissions

of learned A.P.P. and no merit in the submissions of learned

counsel for the petitioner. In the affidavit, which contains

opinion of the treating doctor, a reference has been made to the

extensive tests carried out by the petitioner. These tests, amongst

others, were ultrasound of the abdomen done on two occasions

and on each occasion pancreas was found to be normal and also

no significant or life-threatening abnormality was found. It is also

seen that cardiac investigation had been done and the electro

cardio gram and 2 D-echo were normal thereby indicating

normal and healthy cardiac function. We are of the view that the 5 wp788.2022

evaluation of digestive system, heart and circulatory system and

kidneys (Nephrology and Urology) which was done under the

supervision of specialists is indicative of very good efforts taken

by the doctor to provide, as far as possible, accurate and effective

treatment to the petitioner and, we may say the efforts have borne

fruits as the cause has been found in the diagnosis of the doctor,

which is of indigestion suffered by the petitioner. It is noteworthy

to mention here that inspite of indigestion, the doctor has not

found any nutritional deficiency.

5. When the functioning of digestive system, heart and

circulatory system and kidneys, with no signs of malnutrition

whatsoever or any nutritional deficiency, has been found to be

normal, it is quite likely that a treating doctor may, in his wisdom,

not advise his patient to go for endoscopy and colonoscopy or

both. In such a case, or for a patient like the petitioner, and for

that matter, even for this Court, we must leave the aspect of care

and treatment of the patient to the efforts and wisdom of the 6 wp788.2022

treating doctor. It is well settled that it is neither for the patient

nor any Court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the

expert unless the opinion has been found to be based upon no

material whatsoever or is of such a nature that it is impossible to

be formed by any medical expert in the facts and circumstances of

the case. Then, even when any interference with medical opinion

is to be made, there has to be in existence a contrary or different

medical opinion based upon some material. Such is not the case

here and, therefore, argument canvassed on behalf of the

petitioner is rejected.

6. In the result, we find that the prayer made by the

petitioner for he being admitted to another hospital or he being

referred to another medical expert cannot be granted and the

petition stands rejected. Rule is discharged.

                        (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)                       (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)


                        Tambaskar.
Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO
TAMBASKAR
Private Secretary
Date:20.12.2022 18:33