The order is the first of its kind in a criminal case in the country. Metropolitan Magistrate M R Puranik of the 28th Esplanade Court is hearing a criminal case of 1988, where the state at the instance of Azad Maidan police has filed a criminal case against two specialists of Bombay Hospital Dr P B Desai and Dr A K Mukherjee for medical negligence.

According to the chargesheet filed by police, Leela Singhi, wife of a retired IAS officer P C Singhi, who was suffering from breast cancer had undergone treatment at Sloan Kattering Memorial Hospital, New York. During the course of treatment, she had suddenly started suffering from vaginal bleeding. Doctors at thehospital, including witness Dr Earnest Greenberg, had said her case was inoperable and she should be treated only through medicines.

Leela Singhi was reacting well to the medication but after having returned to India, she developed bleeding once again towards the end of 1987 and was admitted to Bombay Hospital under Dr Desai's care. It is alleged that Dr Desai decided to remove her uterus against the advice of the US doctors. Assistant surgeon Dr Mukherjee then opened her abdomen and found the operation was impossible. He immediately informed Dr Desai, who asked him to close the abdomen. The patient, allegedly not examined by Dr Desai till her discharge, died after severe pain. The prosecution has charged the doctors with a rash act causing injury. In 1991, both doctors were held guilty of misconduct by the Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai under Section 22 (1) of the MMC Act, 1965.

Special public prosecutor D M Arekar and advocate Tejas Bhat told court that since Dr Greenberg was old and unwell andthus unable to travel to India, tele-conferencing whereby the doctor would be seen on the video screen in presence of the court and magistrate in Mumbai, could help give crucial evidence. Arekar had made the application for permission for video conferencing in July 1998. He said according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no provision to secure presence of a person as a witness if he/she is not an Indian citizen. He said a commission sent to the US to examine Dr Greenberg would be expensive. He said Dr Greenberg in a letter has stated he will co-operate with the judiciary.

Arekar also cited a judgement of Justice S N Variava who was presiding over the Special Securities Scam court. At that time, the court directed that one of the key witnesses based in the US could be examined through video conferencing. Justice Variava had noted this minimises or almost eliminates possibility of loss of material recorded. Eevn though the application was allowed by Justice Variava, the examination had notmaterialised.

Opposing the application, senior defence counsel and now Additional Solictor General of India S B Jaisinghani said the application was not feasible and not practicable. However, Jaisinghani's claim was rejected by the court, which observed that the doctor was only an expert witness, so there is nothing wrong in him giving evidence. The magistrate, however, upheld Jaisinghani's argument that Justice Variava's order does not apply in this case as his (Variava's) court is a special court.

The magistrate directed that video conferencing be carried out throught the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) and that the state should bear the costs incurred.