ORDER
1. This petition is in connection with the death of one Indersen Tolaram Mirchandani who died at Breach Candy Hospital on 30th July, 1982. The first petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The second petitioner is his brother; the third petitioner is his sister and the fourth petitioner is his sister’s husband. The third respondent is the wife of the deceased.
2. The deceased was the Managing Director of M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd., and was extremely well-to-do. He suffered his first attack while in Europe in August 1978. He had a second heart attack on 10th March, 1981 in Bombay and was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the Jaslok Hospital, Bombay. He was kept under the charge of Dr. Ashwin Mehta, one of the leading Cardiologists of the city. On 17th March, 1981 he suffered a third heart attack. He, however, survived and was ultimately discharged from the hospital on 30th March, 1981. After his discharge, instead of going to his residence, he went to the Company’s guest house at Malbar Hill for recuperation. It is the case of the petitioners that marital relations between the deceased and his wife, the third respondent were extremely strained and as a result he preferred to go to Company’s guest house for recuperation.
3. In July, 1981 the deceased proceeded to Houston, U.S.A. for Coronary Bypass Surgery. He was operated in Houston under Dr. Denton Cooley. Dr. A. B. Mehta had accompanied him to Houston for the operation. After the operation he convalesced in Switzerland between September and November 1981.
4. On 26th March, 1982 the deceased suffered a stroke and he was again removed to Jaslok hospital. He was discharged from Jaslok Hospital on 7th April, 1982 and he went to the Company’s guest house for recovery. The hospital records of 7th April, 1982 show as follows :-
“Patient persistently demands that he would not like to be in the hospital any more.”
Below this there is also an endorsement which reads as follows :
“Patient very keen to go home – no objection to his discharge. Allowed to go out of hospital at his own risk.”
At the back of the hospital record dated 7th April, 1982 the third petitioner, i.e. the sister of the deceased has made an endorsement to the effect that she had brought him to the hospital on 26th March, 1982 for treatment and she wishes to take her brother away from this hospital at her own risk and against medical advice. From this day onwards till 22nd July, 1982 the deceased was at the Company’s guest house. During this period it seems that in May, 1982 he filed against the third respondent a petition for divorce in the Bombay City Civil Court being Petition No. 416 of 1982. He also made a Will dated 26th May, 1982 which is the bone of contention between the family members because under the Will the deceased disinherited respondent 3 to give her share to their son Shiv, then a minor.
5. During his stay in the guest house, it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was looked after by Dr. Hiralal Desai and Dr. Nair. Nurses were also engaged to look after him. The nurses attending on the deceased kept a daily record of medicines administered to the deceased and also of his general condition for the information of the doctors attending on him.
6. From this note book as also from the records of Breach Candy Hospital, it can be seen that the deceased has a fall in the toilet of the guest house on 17th July, 1982. The deceased, however, appears to have had no change in medical treatment as a consequence. He received the same medicines as were being administered prior to 17th July, 1982 without much problem till 22nd July, 1982. On 22nd July, 1982 he lost consciousness. There is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent 3 as to whether he lost consciousness at 3.00 a.m. on 22nd July, 1982 or at 3.00 p.m. on 22nd July, 1982. In any event Dr. Nair and Dr. Desai were called and on their advice the deceased was shifted on Breach Candy Hospital at about 9.00 p.m. on 22nd July, 1982. He was kept in the Intensive Care Unit of the Breach Candy Hospital.
7. The hospital records of the Breach Candy Hospital show that the deceased was suffering from Congestive Cardiac failure and acute renal failure. It also shows that there was an old history of Myocardial infarction and coronory bypass. Details of the treatment given to the deceased are recorded in the records maintained by the Breach Candy Hospital. On the record for 23rd July, 1982 which contains several details, there is a noting which says :
“Unconscious since early on Thursday morning 3.00 a.m. H/o fall about 5/6 days ago.”
This noting is in the handwriting of Dr. Gajendra Singh, one of the leading Neuro-surgeons on Bombay. He has further noted as follows :-
“It is difficult to completely rule out subdural Haematoma. A CAT scan will clear the picture.”
On the next day Dr. Noshir Wadia, a leading Neuro-physician of Bombay has noted on the hospital record as follows :-
“CAT scan may help but will not really contribute to the therapy. I do not suspect subdural.”
As hospital records show, the deceased was treated by some of the leading doctors of Bombay in Breach Candy Hospital. The fact that he had a fall few days prior to being brought to the hospital, was brought to the attention of the doctors attending on him and they have taken care to check this aspect with a leading Neuro-surgeon and a leading Neuro-physician. The hospital records clearly show that the deceased was suffering from a serious heart condition. He died on 30th July, 1982. The Death Certificate issued by Breach Candy Hospital states the cause of death as congestive cardiac failure accompanied by acute renal failure.
8. In March 1983, the executors of the last Will and testament of the deceased filed a petition for probate. The respondent 3 and her son are contesting the Will. They have also filed a suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased. After the property dispute broke out, the Respondent 3, filed a complaint with the Coronor of Bombay which is dated 1st July, 1983. In the complaint she has stated that in March 1982, as her husband’s condition was serious, certain interested parties conspired to make financial gains for themselves by instigating her husband against her and made all efforts to isolate her from her husband and her son. She complained that she was not allowed to visit her husband in the hospital. She also complained that when her husband was in a serious condition he was kept at the Company’s guest house where proper medical facilities cannot be expected. She complained about the signature of her husband being obtained on several documents to the detriment of herself and her minor son and she concluded by saying “I say that from subsequent events it appears that there has been foul play in the matter of the death of my late husband and also there has been negligence in the medical treatment of my late husband, the said negligence on the part of at least some being deliberate as part of the said conspiracy”. She prayed that the death of her late husband should be enquired into. On the basis of this vague complaint made a year after the death of the deceased, the Coronor submitted a report to the State Government under S. 8A if the Coroners Act 1871 which is dated 1st March, 1984.
9. Section 8-A of the Coroners Act, 1871 as applicable to Bombay is as follows :-
“Where the Coroner has reason to believe that death has occurred within his jurisdiction in any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 8 or 9 and that owing to the destruction of the body, or disposal thereof in contravention of any law for the time being in force, or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, an inquest cannot be held except by virtue of the provisions of this section, he may report the facts to the State Government and the State Government may, if it considers it desirable so to do, direct an inquest to be held touching the death. When such direction is given, an inquest shall be held accordingly by the Coroner and the provisions of this Act shall apply with such modifications as may be necessary in consequence of the inquest being held otherwise than on or after view of the body.”
In order to appreciate the relevant circumstances for the purpose of making a report under S. 8A, it is necessary to look at S. 8(1) and S. 9.
10. Section 8(1) reads as follows :-
“When the Coroner is informed that the dead body of a person is lying within his jurisdiction and there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person has died under any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 9 or has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown, the Coroner may proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry on the body, without a jury.”
The relevant parts of S. 9(1) are as follows :-
“If it appears to the Coroner either before or in the course of an inquiry under section 8 that there is reason to suspect –
(a) that the deceased came by his death by homicide, suicide or infanticide; or (b) that the death was caused by an accident or poison or machinery; or ......... ......... ......... ........... and in any other case, if it appears to the Coroner either before or in the course of the preliminary inquiry that there is reason for holding an inquest by jury, he shall proceed to hold such inquest, whether or not the cause of death arose within his jurisdiction :"
11. Before making the report under S. 8A therefore the Coroner should have had reason to believe that the death occurred in circumstances mentioned in S. 8(1) of the Act or Section 9 of the Act. The report of the Coroner refers to the grievances of the deceased’s wife and in particular her grievance of gross negligence on the part of Medical Authorities concerned. The report then states that in view of this complaint the Coroner seized the medical records of Jaslok Hospital and Breach Candy Hospital. After going through the record the Coroner states as follows :-
“While going through the medical record of the Breach Candy Hospital I came across a note recorded by the hospital on 23-7-1982 which reads thus : “Unconscious since early on Thursday in Morning 3.00 a.m. H/o (i.e. history of) fall about 5-6 days ago.”
In the context of the above history it is pertinent to note that Shri Mirchandani prior to his admission to Breach Candy Hospital was in Advani Orlikon Guest House and in all probability he must have had a fall which might have rendered him unconscious and in which condition he was removed and admitted to Breach Candy Hospital and therefore the application of Smt. Chandra Mirchandani carries some force inasmuch as Shri Mirchandani was denied adequate medical facilities which to my mind, may have brought about his death.”
This conclusion of the Coroner is totally without any factual foundation. If he had seen the medical records of Jaslok Hospital and Breach Candy Hospital, it would have been quite clear to him that the fall had no connection with the unconscious state of the deceased on 22nd July, 1982. For five or six days after the fall the deceased was conscious. It was on account of his heart condition and allied medical problems that he became unconscious on Thursday morning and had to be removed to Breach Candy hospital. The fact that the deceased had a fall on 17th July, 1982 was pointed out to the doctors attending on the deceased at Breach Candy Hospital. The doctors took the precaution of consulting an eminent neuro-physician and an eminent neuro-surgeon of Bombay who had opined that no medical therapy is called for in connection with the fall. The deceased had serious cardiac problems. This is apparent from the medical records of the two hospitals. He was treated by the best available doctors for his cardiac ailment. Despite the medical attentions he expired as a result of Congestive Cardiac failure with acute renal failure. There is no material whatsoever to doubt the cause of his death. The conclusion of the Coroner that the fall had rendered the deceased unconscious or that there was gross negligence on the part of Medical Authorities have absolutely no factual basis. The conclusion of the Coroner that the deceased was denied adequate medical facilities appears to be perverse. This impression is strengthened by other statements made by the Coroner in his report. He has, for example, stated that Shri Mirchandani had a fall following which he became unconscious till his death on 30th of July, 1982. Once again it is a travesty of truth because the deceased was conscious for days after the fall. He also regained consciousness in the hospital. The Coroner thereafter states that it was obligatory upon the Breach Candy Hospital to inform the Police immediately on the deceased being admitted to the hospital and he alleges that due to the failure on the part of the hospital to inform the Police there is absence of Police enquiry and hence the matter has become more shrouded with mystery. There was absolutely no circumstance in the present case, which would have required the Breach Candy Hospital to inform the Police. The Coroner has imagined mystery where there was none.
12. The Coroner seems to have been carried away by the complaint of respondent 3. He was possibly unaware of the frayed relations between the deceased and respondent 3 for some years prior to his death. Petitioners have annexed some correspondence between the deceased and respondent 3 which clearly establishes that relations between the deceased and respondent 3 were far from cordial right up to his death.
13. On the basis of this report the State Government directed an inquest to be held touching the death. For such inquest the Coroner had empanelled a jury and the inquest was in progress when the present petition was filed challenging such an inquest. By virtue of an interim order this inquest has now been stayed.
14. It is strongly urged by Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 that homicide cannot be ruled out without investigation. But when there is ample medical record which rules out homicide an investigation by the Coroner cannot be made. The Coroner must have reason to believe that circumstances justifying an inquent exist. This reason to believe must have an objective basis. It cannot be just a whim or fancy nor can the belief be based merely on the complaint of the wife of the deceased who was not on good terms with her deceased husband and his relatives and who has other motives for setting up an inquest and that too more than a year after death of her husband. As the Supreme Court pointed out in another context in the case of the Income-tax Officer, Calcutta v. Lakhmani Mewal Das in order to have a reasonable belief there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the officer and the formation of his belief. Undoubtedly sufficiency or adequacy of this material cannot be gone into by the Court. But where there is no material whatsoever and the belief of the Coroner is in the teeth of medical records of the deceased it cannot be said that he had reasons which were adequate in law to propel him to make a report under S. 8A of the Coroners Act, 1871 to start an inquest.
15. It is submitted that since the inquiry is only at a preliminary stage I should not intervene. This does not appear to be correct. The Coroner was in the process of holding an inquest after empanelling a jury. He had issued notices to the petitioners in which he said :
“you are alleged to be concerned in causing death of I. T. Mirchandani who is reported to have died on 30th July, 1982.”
These notices are without any factual foundation whatsoever and such an inquest is without any authority of law.
16. It is not necessary to go into the other contentions raised in the petition. In view of the above, there is substance in the petitioners allegations that in view of the property disputes between the petitioners and respondent 3, and the disputes relating to the Will of the deceased, respondent 3 made a complaint to the Coroner about a year after the death of the deceased with ulterior motives.
17. After learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the first respondent had completed their arguments, and learned Counsel for the third respondent had also almost completed his submissions, learned Counsel for the third respondent submitted that a Chamber summons for inspection of documents taken out by him which was adjourned to the hearing of the writ petition ought to have been decided first. This application has come at a belated stage, after the hearing is almost over. In the chamber summons inspection is sought of medical records of the deceased during the time he was in the Company’s guest house from March to July, 1982. In order not to cause any prejudice to the third respondent, after looking at the medical records kept in a sealed cover under the order of the Appeal Court dated 9th April, 1987 I directed the petitioners to give to the third respondent xerox copies of the medical notes kept by the nurses attending on the deceased for the period from 17th July, 1982 till 22nd July, 1982. This is the only relevant period for the purpose of the present petition. The petitioners readily furnished the xerox copies of these notes to learned Counsel of the third respondent. He has been good enough to complete his arguments after looking at these xeroxed medical notes.
18. In the premises the Rule is made absolute in terms if prayers (a) and (b). The respondents to pay to the petitioners costs of the petition.
The medical note books maintained by the nurses during time when the deceased was in the Company’s guest house as also the reports of the medical check-ups during this period are kept in the Court in a sealed cover pursuant to the interim order dated 9th of April, 1987 passed by the Appeal Court. These documents to remain in sealed cover up to 20th June, 1988. Thereafter the same to be returned to the petitioners or their Advocates.
The Prothonotary to act on a certified copy of the minutes of this order.
19. Order accordingly.