Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Thus, what all R.W.1 stated in his chief examination was that appellant was suffering from delusions, and she was suffering from suicidal tendency. Even before the marriage also she was psychic, treatment was taken for the same and that was suppressed from him.

14. There is no dispute that appellant completed her medicine and after the marriage, she joined the respondent at AIIMS, Delhi where she worked as a junior Resident. According to him, she was terminated from that job, as she was irregular on account of medical problem. Ex.B-13 being her termination letter dated 29-10-1996. He admitted that in that order, it is mentioned that her services as a Junior Resident are terminated with effect from 10-6-1996 on account of her unauthorized absence. Thus, nothing is mentioned in the letter that she was terminated on account of any kind of medical problem she was suffering from. There is no dispute that on 7-7-1996 she gave birth to a female child that means that by 10-6-1996, she was in advanced pregnancy, may be for that reason, she was unable to attend to the job; as such, she abstained and was terminated. However, as already referred, there is no reference in Ex.B-13, the termination letter, that she was terminated as she was suffering from any medical problem.

15. Respondent, stated that initially, after she joined him at Delhi, she was behaving abnormally, she used to talk to herself and used to threaten him to consume bulk of medicines available at the residence and when she went to toilet, she used to feel frightened saying that some thing like a ghost was there; that he took her to a psychiatrist there. But no material is filed to show that she was taken to a Psychiatrist, while they were at AIIMS. He has stated that by 11 -8-1998, her condition became serious and she attempted to commit suicide, he gave a telegram Ex.B-21. He did not state as to why the condition of the appellant became serious and how she attempted to commit suicide, whether it was by consuming any poison or by any other mode. This would show, probably, his (R.W.1 's) contention is incorrect. In Ex.B-21, it is simply stated that the condition of the appellant is serious. P.W. 2, received the telegram and came 4-5 days later. In case the condition of the appellant was serious and a telegram was received with regard to the same, obviously, P.W. 2, her mother, would have rushed to the daughter and might not have taken 4-5 days after receiving the telegram to reach the appellant. It is admitted by the respondent that there was telephone facility at his residence as well as at the residence of P.W. 2, at Kakinada. In case there was any problem, naturally he would have informed P.W. 2 over telephone. This telegram is obviously issued for creating some evidence. In cross-examination, respondent (R.W.1) stated that when he tried to contact P.W. 2 over telephone, nobody was lifting the telephone at the residence of P.W. 2, which obviously is false. What might have happened is that after receipt of the telegram, P.W. 2 might have contacted the respondent over telephone and as there was nothing serious, she must have come leisurely. According to the respondent, after he gave telegram. P.W. 2 came and they took her to Dr. Gowri Devi and Ex.B-20 is the prescription. This Ex.B-20 is dated 27-8-1998. In case P.W. 2 was in a serious condition on 11-8-1998, perhaps, she would have been taken to a Doctor much earlier to 27-8-1998 and not more than a fortnight later; that, too, after about more than ten days, after the arrival of P.W. 2. This Ex.B-20 shows the previous medical history of the appellant, as per which she suffered following her failure in final year MBBS examination orduring her final examination (it is not very clear); for second time, she suffered following her delivery. The history does not show that she suffered from any serious problem earlier or even during those periods. During her stay at AIIMS, in case, appellant was really suffering from any substantial mental problem, probably, there was no possibility of her joining as a Junior Resident and as, already referred, there is no material like prescriptions etc., to show that during that period she suffered from any mental problem and was treated for the same. In cross-examination, respondent (R.W.1), stated that the delivery of the appellant was a normal delivery, but he added that during delivery she developed aggressive symptoms, which fact is also evident from Ex.B-22. He further admitted that as seen from Ex.B-17 and B-22, appellant took treatment from Dr. Gowri Devi for one year and five months; Dr. Gowri Devi did not advise for the appellant being admitted in any hospital. He stated that his parents were not aware about his troubles with the appellant, as he did not inform them. In case really, appellant was suffering from any serious problem, perhaps, she would have been admitted as in-patient, at least, for some time. The fact that respondent did not even inform his parents about the illness of the appellant, shows that probably she was not suffering from such serious illness.

16. The evidence of the appellant who examined herself as P.W. 1 is that at Secunderabad where her husband joined as Medical Officer, she also joined as Junior Lecturer in Anatomy in International School of Medical Imaging, Secunderabad. She did medical practice at Priya Paediatric Clinic, Secunderabad. According to her, there is thyroid deficiency in the family of her parents and that she has taken medicines for that problem. While at Secunderabad, she was unable to walk due to severe hypothyroid problem. Her husband took her to Dr. Krishnaveni, Neurologist, for treatment. At that time, she was in depression and Dr. Krishnaveni advised her to take her to Dr. Gowri Devi, Psychiatrist. She examined her and referred her to Endocrinologist Dr. Sudhakara Reddy, who diagnosed her problem as hypothyroid and prescribed entroxin and by using the same she got relief and became normal. It all took about four months. During that period for two months, her parents-in-law were at their house and her husband along with them harassed her to get rid of her. In 1998, appellant was preparing to write postgraduate entrance examination. At that time, she was all-right but the respondent without informing her gave a telegram to her mother though she was not suffering from any ill health but was only having examination tension. During that period she went to Rajahmundry as he was preparing for F.R.C.S. examination and their child was causing disturbance. Then she worked as Junior Doctor in Bhavani Nursing Home and Chaitanya Nursing Home, Rajahmundry. In 1999, she got job as Assistant Civil Surgeon in Government Hospital, Deverapalli, West Godavari District and as on the date of her giving evidence, she was working in Government Hospital, Rowthalapudi and that she was in continuous Government service since April, 1999. She never suffered from acute schizophrenia and was never treated for it. She went to the extent of stating that she has not consulted psychiatrist which, in fact, is incorrect. In her cross-examination, she admitted that because of examinations, she felt mental tension in 1994. She denied that she has taken treatment with Dr. Mallikarjuna Rao, Psychiatrist. She denied that she used to take treatment secretly without the knowledge of her husband. She denied that while her husband and daughter were sleeping during nights, she used to wake up and stand near their beds and behave as if she was going to kill them. All this is not even spoken by the respondent (R. W. 1). It is not suggested to the appellant that when respondent gave Ex.B-21 telegram stating that she was in serious condition, she attempted to commit suicide. In her evidence, it is nowhere suggested to her that she ever attempted to commit suicide though it is vaguely suggested that she exhibited suicidal tendency. Appellant stated that she worked at Hyderabad and Rajahmundry in various Nursing Homes as referred to above. In her cross-examination, it is not even suggested that her above statement is incorrect. In case appellant was suffering from mental disorder, perhaps there was no possibility of her working as Medical Officer in Nursing homes and even her joining and continuing as Medical Officer in Government Hospitals which fact is not in dispute.

18. Thus, oral evidence does not throw much light about the appellant suffering from any acute form of schizphrenia.

19. Coming to previous medical history of the appellant, in Ex.B-14 dated 20-8-1996, name of the patient is not found and no diagnosis is written. Thus, it is not of any use. Ex.B-15 is of the year 1997 pertaining to the appellant. Some medicines are mentioned in this prescription but it would not show the magnitude of the problem. Ex.B-16 dated 10-4-1997 is a prescription on the name of the appellant by Dr. Krishnaveni, Neurophysician, Gandhi Hospital. It shows that appellant was treated for depression and slurring of speech etc. and that she was advised to consult psychiatrist. Ex.B-17 is the prescription dated 10-4-1997 of Dr. Gowri Devi, Psychiatrist, as per which appellant had three earlier episodes, the details of which are not mentioned. Ex.B-18 is another prescription of Dr. Gowri Devi dated 9-8-1997. Here also, no diagnosis is written, only certain medicines are noted. Ex.B-22 is another prescription of Dr. Gowri Devi dated 27-8-1998 as per which the previous history was of suffering of the appellant because of failure in M.B.B.S. final year examinations and during delivery. Thus, there is some material to show that appellant has taken treatment for some psychological problem but nowhere it is found that she suffered from schizophrenia. None of those Doctors who treated her earlier were examined in the Court.