Jayalalithaa's Death: Adequacy Of Appollo Hospital's Treatment Within Scope Of Commission Enquiry, TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for State of Tamil Nadu argued before Court today that allegations of bias by Apollo Hospitals is premature and that the scope of the inquiry undertaken is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari was hearing a special leave petition filed by Apollo Hospitals against Madras High Court's order which had rejected Apollo Hospital's objections to an inquiry commission set up to probe the death of Jayalalithaa looking into aspects of treatment given to her. The petition before the Top Court was filed alleging that the functioning before the CoI was "replete with bias". Background of the Matter The State had appointed the inquiry commission headed by Justice Arumughaswamy, a retired Madras High Court judge, on September 25, 2017. The Commission's reference was to examine the circumstances which led to the hospitalization of Jayalalithaa on September 22, 2016 and the nature of treatment given to determine the cause of hospitalization. Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram appearing for Apollo Hospitals on Wednesday had argued that the proceedings before the Justice (retired) A. Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry, which has been constitute to probe the circumstances relating to the death of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the CoI was only a fact finding body. Submission by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave for the State of Tamil Nadu Looking into adequacy of treatment is within the scope of the CoI Senior Counsel began his submissions by taking the Court through the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants to argue that reliefs prayed for are not to remove the Commission or set aside the orders of the State Government appointing the Commission and that the relief is only in respect of alleged expansion of the scope of the inquiry. He further submitted that "bias" is neither argued nor pleaded for the purpose of removal of the incumbent Commissioner or setting aside the notification and that "the allegations of bias are subsumed by the fact that all they want is that the Commission not go into the aspect of medical competency of Apollo Hospitals or the treatment given." He argued that the scope of the inquiry entrusted to the Commission included the examination of the reasons or causes for the Late Chief Minister's death which would include inquiry into the kind of treatment that was given and hence, the petition ought to be dismissed. "If the nature of treatment is to be examined would it not include questions over adequacy or inadequacy?", he submitted. Argument of bias is premature, CoI is only fact-finding in nature Dave also submitted that the argument of bias was a complete "non-starter" as the Commission was only a fact-finding body which doesn't have to do any adjudication. "The government has to accept the Report, submit an action taken report and submit it before the Assembly...it is at that stage that the cause of action, if any, will arise. At this stage it is only a presumption. How can you assume at this stage just because some observations have been made?", he said. He continued, "No prejudice is caused at this stage and if merely on observations the constitution of the Commission is to be changed it would be completely unacceptable." Senior Counsel further submitted that invoking principles of natural justice cannot be invoked as "no rights are being decided, there is no lis here. It is only a fact-finding inquiry. Only when there is an adjudication and there is bias jurisprudence can be invoked and facets of natural justice be explored." "Till the government decides to accept the report and take action-civil or criminal- there is no cause of action for Apollo Hospitals," he argued. To support his argument, SA Dave made reliance on TT Antony v State of Kerala 2001 6 SCC 181 and Sri Ram Krishna Dalmia v Shri Justice T.R.Tendolkar 1958 AIR 538. Senior Counsel also pointed out that Appellants had moved to the Court on the arguments of bias and that the Commission did not have the scope to enter into questions of adequacy of medical treatment after having attended proceedings for one year. He further pointed out that 50 doctors had already been examined in the matter. The crux of his argument was that the Doctrine of Waiver clearly applies against the Petitioner. In support of this argument Senior Counsel relied on Manak Lal v. Dr.Prem Chand Singhvi AIR 1957 SC 425. Notification setting up the Commission of Inquiry is valid Dave further submitted that the question of quashing the notification does not arise as the Notification setting up the Commission of Inquiry was legal. In support of his argument, he drew the Courts attention to the decision by a Bench led by Justice Indira Banerjee in B. Bala...

Jayalalithaa's Death: Adequacy Of Appollo Hospital's Treatment Within Scope Of Commission Enquiry, TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

Sneha Rao

Tags