Rebecca SamervelMumbai: In a trial that took 15 years, a magistrate’s court this week acquitted a Bhiwandi doctor accused of fabricating a breast cancer diagnosis using a fake Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) letterhead for a woman who sought treatment following a tumour removal.Devaki Pujari and treating doctors believed the woman suffered from a severe malignancy based on a pathology report, but the document was later flagged as a complete forgery.Devaki was not examined as a prosecution witness. Consequently, in a 13-page judgment, the court cleared Dr Arshad Shaikh, owner of a lab, of several charges, including cheating and forgery. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the laboratory owner actually handled the woman’s breast tumour or manufactured the fraudulent medical records for financial gain. “The prosecution will not be in a position to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused himself conducted pathological examination of breast tumour of Devaki and accordingly, issued fabricated pathological report. Resultantly accused will have to be acquitted by giving benefit of reasonable doubt,” judicial magistrate first class P S Shinde said.An FIR was registered at Bhoiwada police station in 2010. The patient’s ordeal began in late 2009, after a tumour was surgically removed and forwarded for pathological examination. The prosecution alleged that instead of actually testing the tumour, Shaikh kept the diagnostic fees and generated a fake breast cancer diagnosis dated Sept 12, 2009. Police claimed the doctor fraudulently scanned a Tata Memorial Hospital letterhead and spliced together diagnostic data from two genuine cancer patients to create the fabricated document, intending to dishonestly induce the woman and physicians into believing the tumour had been officially tested.During a subsequent confrontation by the vigilance department at the hospital on March 15, 2010, Shaikh allegedly admitted to hospital security and administrators that the report was manufactured on a computer.The prosecution examined Devaki’s son, Rajesh Pujari. He deposed that following initial diagnosis by his family doctor, he took his mother to Dr Harish’s Hospital for further treatment. Dr Harish recommended a mammogram and, on reviewing the results, referred the patient to another doctor. That doctor later excised a tumour and sent the tissue sample for testing to Maxim Lab in Kalyan, a facility owned by the accused.The alleged fraud was uncovered months later when the woman was referred to TMH, Parel, for radiation. On examining the patient, a hospital doctor observed the physical symptoms completely mismatched the severe malignancy outlined in the pathology report. An internal hospital investigation revealed the requisition and case numbers on the woman’s documents actually belonged to two other patients, and no legitimate record existed for Devaki in the hospital’s system.Twenty days later, the accused forwarded Devaki’s lab report to the surgeon, who initiated chemotherapy and later referred her to TMH for advanced care, including radiation. However, when Rajesh accompanied his mother to consult the doctor at TMH, doctors there discovered discrepancies in the lab report.During trial, the defence argued against the prosecution’s timeline and motive. During cross-examination by the defence lawyer, Rajesh admitted the tumour was sent by the surgeon to the lab and that he never met the accused before the alleged incident. It was further admitted by him that the alleged report was sent to the hospital by Dr Harish.Referring to this, the magistrate said under such circumstances, the prosecution was bound to examine Dr Harish in order to prove nexus between removal of tumour by him and its pathological examination by the accused. “But, chargesheet shows that any such statement of Dr Harish is not even recorded by investigating officer. Hence, this lacuna goes to root of the case and it creates a doubt as to whether any such tumour of Devaki was sent to laboratory of the accused,” the magistrate said.The magistrate found severe lapses in the police investigation, primarily noting they did not record a statement from the woman who suffered the cancer scare. Also, physical slides produced during the hospital inquiry were never sent for DNA testing to prove they originated from the woman’s tumour.Addressing the lack of digital evidence required to prove the motive of forgery and cheating, the magistrate noted the investigating officer failed to confiscate the computers allegedly used to morph the hospital letterhead.