Legality of Pakhi's accusation - Page 4

What I feel is with this case there will be differences between virat and Pakhi. Sai will not be in big trouble but may be Pakhi will loose big from this like family support and virat’s.

Originally posted by: Sinmegh

My friend is getting her uterus operated as she has fibroids zz they may get it removed she’s only 38 .. it is not uncommon these days ..

My mother also diagnosed that fibroids are growing on uterus, so she underwent uterus removal surgery at 50. Almost close to menopause...my cousin underwent same surgery in early thirties. So nowadays its quite common in women irrespective of their age.

Originally posted by: ginn

What I feel is with this case there will be differences between virat and Pakhi. Sai will not be in big trouble but may be Pakhi will loose big from this like family support and virat’s.

When P was exposed, and they knew that she attacked sai by goons, and risked baby life, faked suiscide attempt still they bailed her out, and made her virat wife and Malkin to CN. Now its just Sai's medical degree. So why will they bother much. So no hopes from virat and Chavans. Maximum he will stay angry on her for few hours. After that he will back to his routine, i will understand your pain pakhi, you are my wife...am sorry pakhi...thats it.

Sai has enough witnesses to prove that she only operated on P out of good samaritan behavior as a doctor, in an emergency setting where no other doctor was available and she did not have the luxury of time to wait for someone else to arrive.

She has enough people to back her up as witnesses about how she was the one to locate P before she was chewed up by crocodiles - and she'd have been dead. That Sai did first surgery also to save her life. If she had personal vendetta she'd have walked away from the scene of accident without any care for P being alive/dead or botched up surgery number 1 itself to take P to task. Even during surgery number 2, Sai didn't know Vinus asliyat for that to be the new reason of vendetta.

Sai has a clean track record of being fair and unbiased as a professional even to criminals. JM can testify that Sai saved his life even though he murdered her father.

So there is no basis for this complaint.

And in the actual uterus removal surgery the main accused if any should be Pullu since it is he who made all the treatment decisions. He merely called Sai for assistance in terms of being familiar with Ps history and for surgical landmarks etc in the context of a repeat OR intervention on the patient . And Pullu was chosen as Ps follow up doctor by P herself. Pullu didn't appoint himself.

Legally it does not stand

Ethically it doesn't stand when its a matter of life/death that Sai was assisting in.

Originally posted by: Nja91

Sai has enough witnesses to prove that she only operated on P out of good samaritan behavior as a doctor, in an emergency setting where no other doctor was available and she did not have the luxury of time to wait for someone else to arrive.

She has enough people to back her up as witnesses about how she was the one to locate P before she was chewed up by crocodiles - and she'd have been dead. That Sai did first surgery also to save her life. If she had personal vendetta she'd have walked away from the scene of accident without any care for P being alive/dead or botched up surgery number 1 itself to take P to task. Even during surgery number 2, Sai didn't know Vinus asliyat for that to be the new reason of vendetta.

Sai has a clean track record of being fair and unbiased as a professional even to criminals. JM can testify that Sai saved his life even though he murdered her father.

So there is no basis for this complaint.

And in the actual uterus removal surgery the main accused if any should be Pullu since it is he who made all the treatment decisions. He merely called Sai for assistance in terms of being familiar with Ps history and for surgical landmarks etc in the context of a repeat OR intervention on the patient . And Pullu was chosen as Ps follow up doctor by P herself. Pullu didn't appoint himself.

Legally it does not stand

Ethically it doesn't stand when its a matter of life/death that Sai was assisting in.

Ok but if thats the case then Pullu should not be accused, only Sai should since she supposedly botched up the surgery. pullu didnt do surgery number one. And Pullu clearly stated that the reason for P having infection/bleeding/whatever was her own neglect of health and not from negligence of doctor. And the case can be easily dismissed by any expert witness since no person recovering from surgery would go on honeymoon so soon and not take the prescribed meds or caution provided by doctors- V also can be witness to her throwing medicines in trash.

Originally posted by: Nja91

Ok but if thats the case then Pullu should not be accused, only Sai should since she supposedly botched up the surgery. pullu didnt do surgery number one. And Pullu clearly stated that the reason for P having infection/bleeding/whatever was her own neglect of health and not from negligence of doctor. And the case can be easily dismissed by any expert witness since no person recovering from surgery would go on honeymoon so soon and not take the prescribed meds or caution provided by doctors- V also can be witness to her throwing medicines in trash.