Petitioner sought protection from alleged threats by a former patient demanding compensation. Police reported no current threat despite summit calls and surveillance noted. Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to approach for future security.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941
WP(C).No.17584 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
DR.P.P.DILEEPKUMAR, MD.PHD(AY) MEDICIAL DIRECTOR, REG.NO.6931A S/O.DR.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AMBUJA NIVAS, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENT/S:
4 SABU.C.P.,S/O.PONNAPPAN, CHANDRAPURAYIL HOUSE, H.NO.500, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY-686141
SYAMJIRAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17584 of 2019 2
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. &
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
W.P.(C.) No.17584/2019
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY , 2019.
JUDGMENT
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
Grievance of the petitioner is against inaction on the part
of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in taking any appropriate steps pursuant to Ext.P4 complaint lodged by him.
a kidney transplantation. The 4th respondent alleged that he
WP(C).No.17584 of 2019 3
has to undergo the transplantation only because of the lathes in the treatment administered by the petitioner. The latter demanded a huge amount of compensation from the petitioner. The demand continued and there was constant threat of manhandling the petitioner, in case he is not amenable to the demand raised. The petitioner expressed apprehension in the complaint that, at any moment the 4th respondent may cause attack on him. Complaint was also raised that the 4th respondent is attempting to tarnish reputation of the petitioner as a Doctor, in the society. Under such circumstances, the petitioner requested the respondents 1 to 3 to take steps to afford adequate protection to the person and property of the petitioner.
WP(C).No.17584 of 2019 4
of the MLA as requested, but the MLA was not present there, and a person who was present there had raised threat, demanding compensation. The petitioner also mentioned about the threat caused over telephone by the 4th respondent. But on enquiry, the 3rd respondent had realised that, the 4th respondent is not in station and he is now at Hyderabad. It is mentioned that the 3rd respondent had contacted the 4th respondent over telephone and it was said that, apart from submitting a complaint to the Government through the MLA, no action of threat was made from the side of the 4th respondent. However, the 4th respondent had conceded that he had telephoned the petitioner once with respect to the issue involved. It is stated that the 4th respondent had agreed to the 3rd respondent that no such threat or intimidation will be caused to the petitioner hereafter, except the 4th respondent taking appropriate legal action to get compensation from the petitioner. It is stated on behalf of the 3rd respondent that, at present there exists no threat to the life or property of the petitioner and that proper surveillance is given to the petitioner who is residing very near to the Station House. According to the 3rd respondent, further action based on the complaint will
WP(C).No.17584 of 2019 5
be pursued, if necessary, after questioning the 4th respondent as and when he comes back to the native place.
learned Government Pleader based on the instructions received from the 3rd respondent, we are of the opinion that there exists no situation at present with respect to any threat to the life of the petitioner. Needless to say that, if there is any such apprehension, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents 2 and 3, in which case, the respondents 2 and 3 shall take appropriate steps to afford protection to the life of the petitioner and to his properties and shall take appropriate steps to avoid any illegal or criminal acts from the side of the 4th respondent or anybody acting under him.
The Writ Petition is disposed of subject to the
observations contained hereinabove.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
Sd/-
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
ajt
WP(C).No.17584 of 2019 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF HOUSE SURGEONCY ISSUED BY A.L.N RAO MEMORIAL AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, CHIKMANGALORE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF ADDITIONAL MEDICAL QUALIFICATION FROM TRAVANCOPRE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCILS, REDCROSS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 18.8.2007
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM TRANVACORE-COCHIN COUNCIL OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE DT.2.4.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.19.6.2019 BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3
DR.P.P.DILEEPKUMAR
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KOCHI CITY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHRA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE UDAYAMPEROOR
SABU.C.P.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
