HC lets ailing prisoner seek second opinion, warns of action if treatment remains same

The petitioner, who is booked under the NDPS Act, sought bail to take a second opinion on his actual health status and to ascertain whether any surgical intervention was needed

Mumbai While granting temporary release to an undertrial prisoner for seven days to get a second opinion on his oral cancer treatment, the Bombay high court (HC) warned of serious consequences if the experts report concurs with the treatment he is already undergoing.

The court directed the petitioner to inform the investigating authorities about the details of the expert who he wished to consult and directed the prison authorities to release the petitioner on leave with escort for the medical expert’s opinion (HT File)

The petitioner, who is booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act, sought bail to take a second opinion on his actual health status and to ascertain whether any surgical intervention was needed as he was unable to open his mouth and was not getting a diet in line with his treatment while at Arthur Road jail.

The division bench of justice Prasanna Varale and justice Shriram Modak, while hearing the petition of the undertrial prisoner filed through his brother, was informed by advocate Taraq Sayed that his client did not have any grievance regarding the treatment. However, due to stage IV oral cancer, there was an apprehension that in case of extreme emergency including any surgery, the jail authority would not be in position to provide necessary care.

While allowing the release from March 21-27, the bench warned the petitioner, “We further make it clear that on perusal of the report, if we find that the treatment being provided is proper treatment and medical experts is not observing any departure from the treatment being provided to the petitioner, then this aspect would be considered by this court for serious consequence to follow.”

The court directed the petitioner to inform the investigating authorities about the details of the expert who he wished to consult and directed the prison authorities to release the petitioner on leave with escort for the medical expert’s opinion, after which he would be dropped at his residence.

While submitting that the diet being provided in the prison may not be appropriate for combatting the ailment, Sayed stated that the petitioner was desirous of having an opinion from a private doctor to know his actual health status.

Thereafter, the court perused the medical reports and the line of treatment by the expert doctors of Tata Memorial Hospital, after which it noted that it did not have medical expertise and by no stretch of imagination, could decide or assess the medical report as an appellate authority.

“Though the report satisfies this court, only on the submission of the counsel that the petitioner is approaching on humanitarian ground to have an opportunity of second opinion from a private medical expert and his choice for his satisfaction and for satisfaction of his family members, we permit the petitioner to undertake the said exercise with certain conditions,” noted the court in its order.