The secrecy surrounding the 75-day hospitalization of former chief minister Jayalalithaa turned more curious than ever, with Apollo Hospitals informing the Madras high court that it was Jayalalithaa's wish not to release any photograph, and the state government saying, for the first time, that on the date of admission on September 22, she had 'underlying co-morbidities', along with fever and dehydration.
BCCL
The other details include the disclosure that "a medical decision was taken to allow a natural cessation of life" on December 5, and that the team of doctors from AIIMS, Delhi was deputed by the government of India.
A submission to this effect was made on Thursday, in response to a PIL filed by P A Joseph seeking appointment of three former judges of the Supreme Court to conduct a probe in this regard.
In its counter-affidavit, the Apollo Hospitals chairman said: "All information released by Apollo Hospitals pertaining to the treatment of the late chief minister was done as per her wishes. The late chief minister had expressed her desire that no photographs of hers be released, and that any information released about her medical treatment emphasize the positive aspects such as potential recovery and release from hospital," the hospital chairman Pratap C Reddy told the court on Thursday.
BCCL
Highlighting the hospital's obligation to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of Jayalalithaa, the hospital told a bench of acting chief justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and justice R Mahadevan that it released press statements during the 75-day hospitalization period "only on request of the state government in the interests of maintaining public order and minimizing speculation and rumour-mongering."
The hospital management complied with the MCI Code of Ethics and the Joint Commission International (JCI) norms, which said the hospital is required to inquire into, and respect, each patient's privacy preferences. It includes the patient's choice pertaining to the sharing of information with family or third parties, or if such information may be shared, the extent to which information may be shared, whether the patient has any objections to being photographed, etc. it said.
Best of care was provided to her, and she was attended to by a team from the AIIMS deputed by the Government of India for the purpose, the counter-affidavit said.
AFP
As for the reported recovery of Jayalalithaa, and her sudden demise on December 5, the hospital said: "The chief minister was admitted on September 22, 2016 and showed improvement with initial treatment, the ailment progressed and was continually tested and diagnosed and treated with indications that the treatment was moving on a positive scale, right until the time of her sudden cardiac arrest on December 4, 2016. Even at that time, resuscitation procedures were immediately initiated. It was only after a continued lack of response to the treatment provided to her, that a medical decision was taken to allow a natural cessation of life on December 5, 2016."
The state health and home department officials, on their part, said in their counter-affidavit, that Jayalalithaa was admitted in the hospital on the night of September 22, 2016 with complaints of fever and dehydration and underlying co-morbidities. It said the AIIMS team of doctors was deputed on the request of the government of Tamil Nadu 'for consultations on the treatment being administered by the team of doctors at Apollo Hospitals.'
BCCL
Citing the press releases issued by the hospitals and the Raj Bhavan, it said Jayalalithaa responded well to the multi-disciplinary care in the critical care unit of the hospital. When she suffered a massive cardiac arrest in the evening of December 4, 2016, she was administered resuscitation and provided Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) support within the hour. Every possible clinical attempt was made to sustain her revival, it said.
K M Vijayan, senior counsel for the PIL-petitioner, however, objected to the contents of the counter-affidavit, and argued that they were identical.
Madana Gopal Rao, senior central government standing counsel representing the Centre, on his part, objected to the fact saying the Prime Minister's Office had been unnecessarily named in the case and sought its removal. The bench gave the Centre two week's time to file a counter, in which it could raise those points. The case was then adjourned to March 13 for further hearing.