Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The contention is that even now the petitioner is willing to appear before the Medical Board as she is suffering from paralysis as per the specific averment made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition and thus it is prayed that another opportunity be given to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel states that a perusal of the medical prescriptions that have been annexed by the petitioner in support of her illness, which have been filed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition would indicate that apart from the fact that the said prescriptions are of a private hospital, another aspect is that the said prescriptions do not indicate the alleged illness of the petitioner, i.e., "Paralysis" rather perusal of the said prescriptions indicates that the petitioner is suspected to be suffering from Parkinson's disease. Even otherwise, the prescription indicates that the petitioner is having tremors, but the said medical prescription does not indicate that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Medical Board on 04.01.2024 and consequently, the respondents vide order dated 05.01.2024 have rejected the representation of the petitioner.

14. The sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioner, as stands recorded earlier by this Court vide judgement and order dated 22.09.2023 as well as now in the instant petition is that the petitioner is suffering from the paralysis. The Government Order dated 07.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, categorically provides in paragraph 5 (v) that a physically handicapped person should invariably be kept free from transfer. The physical handicap of the petitioner has categorically been stated in the petition to be paralysis. The medical prescriptions filed in support thereof do not indicate anywhere that the petitioner is suffering from the paralysis rather she is suspected to be suffering from parkinson. No literature has been brought on record that the parkinson disease renders a person handicapped.

15. Even otherwise, the Taber's Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary, Edition 19 defines the Parkinson disease as "a common chronic degenerative disease of the central nervous system that produces movement disorders and changes in cognition and mood.

16. Paralysis is defined as "Loss of sensation; anesthesia, loss of purposeful movement usually as a result of neurological disease".

17. Further as per the information available on the official website of LYBRATE paralysis and parkinson have been indicated as "paralysis can happen commonly due to blood clot cutting blood supply to the brain, as the clot lyses the part of the brain will recover function. In Parkinson there is degeneration of neurons (brain cells), degenerated neurons cannot regenerate and their functions can be tried to be restored with medicines".

18. From a perusal of the aforesaid definitions of both parkinson and paralysis, it is apparent that the both the diseases are world apart, parkinson disease producing the movement disorder and changes in cognition and mood vis a vis paralysis producing loss of sensation; loss of purposeful movement usually as a result of neurological disease

19. As already indicated above, the alleged illness of the petitioner of "Paralysis" is not borne out from the medical certificates as annexed by the petitioner which do not indicate anywhere that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis rather it is indicated that she is suspected of having Parkinson's disease. Even otherwise, the medical certificate is of a private hospital which nowhere indicates about the alleged paralysis being suffered by the petitioner and on the basis of which the petitioner had filed the earlier petition as specially finds place in the order of the Writ Court. Even now, instead of having filed any prescription in support of the petitioner suffering from paralysis, all the medical prescriptions filed by the petitioner do not indicate anywhere that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis meaning thereby that the petitioner had filed the earlier petition and even this petition on totally false facts which clearly cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law.