Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Now if Col. Davidson's evidence is accepted it is conceded that the will cannot stand but it has been strenuously urged that no reliance ought to be placed on Col. Davidson's testimony, having regard to his conduct and the contradictory statements which he has made. Col. Davidson has not given evidence in this Court, and if it were not that I am satisfied that it is my duty to do so, indeed, it is not possible to arrive at a sound conclusion on the second issue without appraising the value of Col. Davidson's evidence, I should have been glad to refrain from any animadversion upon the conduct of a professional man. The course which Col. Davidson adopted was, indeed, a strange one. It appears that in January 1921 he was approached by one B.C. Chatterjee, who claimed to be an Advocate, and Chatterjee requested him to give him a certificate as to the soundness of the Kumar's mental faculties on the 21st November. That certificate he gave, he states, in the form of a written statement, that as this document was not forthcoming at the trial, I am unable to say what the terms of the certificate were. About the 8th August 1922, however, it appears that Chatterjee again approached Col. Davidson in company with one Nipendra Sircar, who is a beneficiary under the will. Chatterjee, on this occasion, brought with him a set of interrogatories to be answered by Col. Davidson. The 6th interrogatory was as follows:

Dr. Premnath has stated on oath that Raja Guru Prosad Sinha did execute the will in his presence on the 21st November 1920, between 3 and 4 p. m. and was in possession of his senses and was quite capable of making a will at that time; are you in a position to differ from his statement regarding the mental capacity of the Raja at that time, that is between 3 and 4 p.m. If you do differ please state your grounds.
Answer: I am not in a position to controvert the statement of Dr. Premnath.

9. It is, I think, an extremely unwary and undesirable thing that a doctor should in any circumstances answer interrogatories of this description, and it is oven more inadvisable for him to do so without previously having satisfied himself as to the identity and position of his interrogator. Col. Davidson, however, being under the impression that Chatterjee and Sircar were in some way or other connected with the case in the interest of the persons who were seeking to invalidate the will, although he appears to have made no enquiries in the matter, answered the interrogatories then and there, and received Rs. 200 for so doing. About a week later Chatterjee once more approached Col. Davidson, on this occasion being accompanied by one P.N. Sinha. A further set of interrogatories were handed to Col. Davidson. These interrogatories in my opinion, were of a very improper nature. Interrogatories Nos. 12 13, 14 and 15 were obviously in the nature of cross-examination of Col. Davidson on the answer which he bad given to interrogatory No. 6 on the 8th August. They are as follows:

A. Yes, after seeing the will and knowing the condition of the patient when I saw him; also from the fact that the patient suffering from delirium tremens is mentally unfit to make a will.

11. On these facts I am invited to come to the conclusion that Col. Davidson is a man who is ready to give a medical opinion, true or untrue, if only he receives adequate remuneration for so doing. For the reasons which I am about to give, I refuse to accept as correct this grave imputation upon the character of a well-known professional man. Col. Davidson has endeavoured to explain his answer to interrogatory No. 6 on the 8th August in more ways than one. He stated that throughout he was under the impression that Chatterjee was submitting questions to him on behalf of those who were opposing the will, But, in my view, this suggested explanation is no explanation at all. There appears to be no reason why a scientific witness should not be a witness of one or more or all of the parties to a legal proceeding. To a professional man, it matters not which party calls him as a witness. What is of concern to a medical witness is the accuracy of the scientific opinion which he expresses, not the party by which such evidence is tendered. Col. Davidson also sought to explain this answer by indicating that if he bad seen the will before he had replied to the interrogatory No. 6 on the 8th August, his answer would have been to the contrary effect. But if, as he asserted, the Kumar at 12 noon on the 21st November was suffering from delirium tremens, it is conceded that he was incapable of duly making not only the alleged will, but a will of any description whatever. Further, Col. Davidson attempted to excuse his answer to interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that, although he was satisfied on the 21st November that the Kumar was not possessed of testamentary capacity, Dr. Premnath might honestly have formed a different opinion, and that Dr. Premnath's view depended upon what Dr Premnath "considered sufficient mental capacity to form a will." But was that a reason which would justify Col. Davidson in refraining from stating an opinion which he had himself formed as to the Kumar's condition? Surely not, for in such circumstances suppressio veri and suggestio falsi are one and the same thing. In my opinion, none of these suggested explanations have any substance in them. After mature consideration I am satisfied that the real reason which induced Col. Davidson to answer interrogatory No. 6 on the 8th August in the way he did, was that he knew that at that time there was no longer any real opposition to the will: that all the persons who were believed to have an interest in the Kumar's estate had settled their differences, and that all parties were at one in their desire to establish the soundness of the testator's mental capacity. It was, in my opinion, with that information before him that Col. Davidson was invited to answer the interrogatories which were put to him on the 8th August. Col. Davidson stated that Chatterjee or Sircar soothed his misgivings by suggesting that Col. Davidson " could not call Dr. Premnath a liar," and that he replied "his answer depends upon what he considers mental capacity, but a man suffering from delirium tremens could not make a will." Having slaved his conscience by this protestation Col. Davidson, in my opinion, allowed himself to be persuaded that he was justified in departing from what his professional instinct must have told him was the proper course for him to pursue. Hincillee lacri mae; I regret to say that in these Courts instances not infrequently occur in which medical men, not of any standing or distinction, give medical certificates, for instance, for the purpose of obtaining the adjournment of a case, on grounds which after investigation turn out to be wholly insufficient to justify the exemption of a witness from attendance, thereby forsaking their position as men of science in order to oblige a patient. But complaisance and the pursuit of science go ill together, and if as a result of this case every member of the medical community in future determines to hold the traditions of his profession sacrosanct and inviolable then, indeed, the enquiry will not have been undertaken in vain. It was, however, contended by counsel on behalf of the propounder that it is inconceivable, if Col, Davidson, had found that the Kumar on the morning of the 21st November was suffering from delirium tremens, that he should not have prescribed specific drugs for that disease. I am not impressed with this contention. The medical evidence adduced was to the effect that the mode of treatment to be followed in the case of delirium tremens depended upon the urgency of the situation: that in case of delirium tremens the main endeavour of the physician should be to induce rest, and that the desired result would be obtained at least as efficaciously by good nursing as by the use of drugs. Neither Col. Waters, nor Col. Moses were prepared to say in the circumstances of this case that the course pursued by Col. Davidson on the 21st November was wrong. From these reasons I accept the evidence of Col. Davidson that at 12 noon on the 21st November the Kumar was suffering from delirium tremens, and was not of sound disposing capacity. Having regard to the view which I entertain in respect of the evidence to which I have referred I find myself unable to place any reliance upon the evidence of Dr. Premnath. It is fair to this witness to state that he has consistently affirmed that at the time when the Kumar executed the will in suit he was in full possession of his senses, but, in my opinion, both Dr. Premnath and Fakir Chand have also consistently minimised the gravity of the Kumar's illness. In his statement on the 26th March 1921 no mention whatever is made by Dr. Premnath that at any time during his illness the Kumar was suffering from delirium tremens, or indeed from delirium at all. His description of the violent attack of delirium tremens from which admittedly the Kumar was suffering at 1 a. m. on the 22nd was as follows: