Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The said report indicated malignant Melanoma and it also advised its confirmation by getting the same further investigated with a four marker indicator including S-100 Immunohistopathology test.

5. The Complainant applied before the Dayanand Medical College for providing the slides (Paraffin Blocks) for getting the reports as advised on 05.08.2014. This document is at page 220 of FA/476/2019.

6. The Complainant on 06.08.2014 on her own got all pathological tests done which were required for a surgery. These were pre­ operative tests which are on record.

He then points out to the prescription of Dr. Ravindra Tah dated 28.07.2014, annexure P-1 page 186, indicating that there was a growth which had been excised and the same was sent for analysis to the Dayanand Medical College. He points out that the colour of the growth was recorded as reddish with a hollow and the duration was one year. The excision was to a limited margin whereafter the same material was examined by the pathologist and a report was tendered on 02.08.2014. Mr. Sobti submits that this slide on the basis whereof the report of the pathologist from Dayanand Medical College was submitted has not been placed before the subsequent examining bodies at all. He has pointed out to the receipts issued indicating that the examination was made by the pathologist at Dayanand Medical College for two of the marker tests.

The rest of the markers tests were to be done for which the slides were sent to M/s. SRL Laboratories. For this he has invited the attention of the Bench to the document dated 04.08.2014 at page 191 of the paper book.

Mr. Sobti has advanced his submissions from this stage to vehemently urge that these slides and blocks which were prepared and were returned back to the complainant on her written request which she had made on 05.08.2014, and he has then taken Bench through the documents at pages 192, 193 and 195 FA Nos. 476_479_664_1637_1639 of 2019 Page I 39 of the paper book to substantiate his submissions. He submits that the slides were collected by one Mr. Harvinder on behalf of the M/s. SRL Laboratohes. The contention is that the blocks and the slides were handed over, as is evident from the discharge register receipt referred to above and even assuming for the sake of arguments, though not admitting that they were given on 28.08.2014, yet it was given back to the complainant which was not forwarded to AllMS for any opinion. It is this slide which was withheld by the complainant in order to make out some case against the pathologist. He further submits that the slide having been collected by Mr. Harvinder was not dispatched and has not been examined by the AllMS. At this stage he has invited the attention of the Bench to paragraph 49 of the impugned order by the State Commission that the doubt expressed by the State Commission is contrary to the said evidence on record and if at all any evidence was required, this nature of examination can be made only by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not in a summary jurisdiction exercised by the State Commission. The contention of Mr. Sobti is that the complainant being in possession of the slide and the blocks ought to have disclosed the very same slide, which was not done by her and hence any subsequent opinions relied on by the complainant cannot be given credit.