Sl. No.                                                         F.No.14/350/02-03-PCI

Mrs. Manju Wadwalkar,
Public Relations Officer, 
Postgraduate Institute of Medical  Education & Research,
Chandigarh.

Vs

The Editor,
Indian Express,
Chandigarh.

Complaint:

          Mrs. Wadwalkar, Public Relations Officer, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh has filed this complaint dated 2.8.2002 against “Indian Express”, Chandigarh for publication of an allegedly incorrect and misleading news item captioned “MEDICARE! Only two senior residents for 150 cases flowing in every day – Emergency. PGI isn’t equipped to deal with it” in its Chandigarh Newsline supplementary issue dated 18.7.2002.

          Highlights of the impugned news item read as follows:-

                   “The premier medical Institute of the North region is only as good as a district level hospital. The staff-patient ratio in the Emergency is less than inadequate. So is the bed-patient ratio. For the emergency ward, ICU and CCU, the doctor-patient ratio should be 1:2. But since 1968, there have been only two doctors on duty in the Emergency wards (each ward has 25 to 30 seriously-ill patients’…. The gloomy picture of the emergency is real. The patients are right in their perception that the emergency is a total chaos. But the SRs are also workings under tremendous pressure….The scene’s no different at the surgical emergency where two doctors in each surgical room tend to 30 to 35 patients. At times, the number of doctors goes down to one. Similar is the case at the trauma ward, which is the main reason for the high number of deaths occurring here.”

The complainant in her formal complaint dated 14.10.2002 submitted that the statements made in the impugned news item against the institute had been taken from private practitioners/Ex-PGI doctors who did not have any locus standi to comment upon institutions of the standing and accomplishments such as PGIMER. She stated that Dr. G.S. Kochhar was never a professor in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, and had to leave the Institute unceremoniously about 20 years back. He was never involved in direct patient care at the Emergency of PGI, added the complainant. The complainant alleged that to begin a story with comments of private practitioners and publish it to further their personal interests was ethically incorrect. It is very easy to file statements of anonymous PGI officials so that the story looks credible, alleged the complainant, and added that the statement of the Medical Superintendent had been deliberately given in the end to mislead the reader. The complainant father alleged that to use PGI’s name in the headline and on the first page of the newspaper and to file statements of people who have no credibility showed that the correspondent had questionable motives, against the Institute and was also serving commercial interests of some private organizations.

The complainant had issued a letter, dated 18.7.2002 to the respondent with a request to publish a rejoinder, but to no avail.

Written statement

          Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 11.11.2003. The respondent-Editor, the Indian Express, Chandigarh in his written statement dated 24.12.2003 submitted that the impugned news item was carried in good faith without bearing malice towards the institute or anybody else. It was published in public interest, based on information received from reliable sources. He also stated that a bare perusal of the news report would reveal that attention was sought to be drawn to inadequate number of Doctors/Residents available for Emergency at the institute, i.e. the staff-patient ratio in Emergency was less than adequate. Due care was taken by the reporter in contacting PGI’s Officiating Medical Superintendent, and his comments had also been carried in the report.

          The respondent further submitted that no personal allegations had been made against any of its doctors, staff or the hospital nor it contained any allegations as to their competency. It merely pointed out that there was a need to have more doctors and an improvement in the doctor-patient ratio. He also added that the complainant’s comments, which she would like to have published in the newspaper, related to several issues not connected with the issue raised in the news report. The assertions in the complaint that the news report in question was a deliberate attempt to denigrate the institution was baseless and denied, stated the respondent and added that there was no merit whatsoever in the complaint.

          A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.1.2004 for information/counter comments.

 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

          The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2005. Both the parties were not represented. The Committee noted that the complainant had sent a letter dated 2.3.2005 informing that since the matter had been settled they wished to withdraw the complaint. The Committee, in view of the request of the complainant recommended to the Council to close the complaint as withdrawn.

Decision of the Council

          The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.