Indian's death in Maldives in 2016: AIIMS tells HC he died due to natural causes
New Delhi: The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), which was asked to look into the death of a man who died allegedly due to medical negligence while on a honeymoon at a Maldives resort in 2016, has told the Delhi High Court that he died as a result of acute onset of high levels of fat in the blood.
An eight-member medical board of the AIIMS, set up on the high court's direction, has placed before a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani a report which said the deceased suffered from hypertriglyceridemia, that indicates high levels of fat in the blood.
The board members have "unanimously concluded" that the "cause of the death was cerebro pulmonary oedema secondary to heart failure with associated hypertension".
"...death is due to acute onset of the disease and its complication, an unexpected natural cause of death," it has said.
The board, in its report, has also recommended "strengthening the medical case set up in such island resorts".
The report was filed after the high court on April 4 had asked the AIIMS to set up a panel to examine the forensic and post-mortem report of the deceased.
The direction had come on the plea by the deceased's father, Chelakara Ramaswamy, who has contended that his son died due to medical negligence of the doctor -- Dorjee Khandu -- who treated him for food poisoning while he was staying at the resort at the Vilu Reef Island, which is more than 100 km away from Male, capital of Maldives, and can be reached only by sea planes.
He has also alleged that the J J Hospital at Mumbai, where the post-mortem was carried out, did not follow the procedure properly and gave a "sham report". He has further claimed that the Final Cause of Death Certificate, issued by the J J Hospital was not in terms of the Maharashtra Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000.
The court on April 4 had also issued directions to the forensics department of the Maharashtra government, which had carried out the post-mortem of the deceased and analysis of tissue samples, to find out how the viscera samples in the case had disappeared.
The state government, in its report, has told the court that the viscera samples "got destroyed unknowingly".
It has said that the official in-charge of the samples was transferred and the acting in-charge had given the order to destroy all analysed viscera samples as a routine process.
The acting in-charge was unaware about the instant case, the state government has claimed in its report.