Abstract
Dear Editor, The ‘Contemporary Issue’ article by Kotabagi et al (Common Medicolegal Problems faced by MOs in Armed Forces Medical Services, MJAFI 2002;58:234-240) made interesting reading. The refreshingly down-to-earth style was particularly appealing. However a few questions arose. 1. The authors quote the duties given in CrPC Sec 539 and 175 (I wonder why in this order) and Sec 202 of the IPC as important to medical practitioners. Could the authors educate us on what these sections are about? 2. Is it not incorrect to depend upon a personal communication while categorically stating that post mortem diagnoses are not a mandatory requirement of the PCDA Pensions, Allahabad? 3. In the text of the paper the terms Appx ‘B’ and Appx ‘C’ are mentioned but do not appear again at the end of the article.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
