Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“Pt. Sensorial – altered, disoriented. GLS: E4 M6 V4 (As per Glasgow Coma Scale) confused or disoriented.”
5. It is also stated by the petitioner that thereafter, the disciplinary committee summoned Dr.P.Basumani, who was one of the primary consultants among the team of specialist Doctors treating the patient during the relevant period. Accordingly, he appeared before the committee on 22.04.2021 and deposed that there were several complications faced by the patient and that, the patient was shifted to the ICU on 07.10.2015 and put on ventilator support;
“Pt. Sensorial – altered, disoriented. GLS: E4 M6 V4 (As per Glasgow coma scale) confused or disoriented”

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, filed a memo, stating explanation about the terms mentioned in the medical reports, as per Glasgow Coma Scale. According to the same, the explanation to 'E4' 'M6' 'V4' would run thus:

The patient was recorded to have the 2nd highest grade in verbal response i.e., V4.

In the light of the aforesaid explanation given in the Glasgow Coma Scale and on the basis of the medical records of the patient, the petitioner has correctly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ responded to the question, 'whether the patient was conscious or not' as 'the patient was conscious' and he was not asked about the status or consciousness level of the patient to be responding in detail. Further, it is to be noted that the other responses to the queries on travel ability and presence of Dr.Radhakrishnan were correctly given by the petitioner and there was no dispute in this regard. More over, the police authorities have not sought for a certificate, but they asked for particulars. Therefore, the reply submitted by the petitioner, qua question no.1, cannot be said to be incorrect or misleading statement to the police authorities, in the opinion of this court.