Medical council gives doctor in torture teen probe one week to respond to findings

The Guyana Medical Council has given Police Surgeon Dr Mahendra Chand seven days to respond to its findings about his treatment of the teen boy who was tortured at the Leonora Police Station.

Minister of Health Dr Leslie Ramsammy would not comment about the doctor’s treatment of the child when asked by Stabroek News, citing the council’s ongoing investigation. According to the minister, the doctor, who has sought to defend himself in the press, was called by the council and given a chance to explain himself. “[The council was] not satisfied with his response and they made certain findings and he has been given seven days to respond,” the minister said. He would not divulge the findings of the council, saying he did not “want to prejudice the outcome.” He revealed that the council initiated an investigation into the doctor’s conduct based on media reports.

Ramsammy also disclosed that the doctor contacted him last week and he advised him to seek legal advice when responding to the council. Chand has faced criticism for treating the boy while his face was covered with a bag. Asked about this, Ramsammy would offer no further comment.

It is believed that Chand would be strongly disciplined and could be in jeopardy of losing his licence to practice.

The teen, who was a suspect in the murder of former Region Three Vice-Chairman Ramenauth Bisram, was hospitalised for a number of days and was later released into the custody of his parents.

Two policemen have since been charged with unlawfully wounding the child, as well as in connection with the beatings meted out to two other men who were being investigated for the same murder.

Chand’s treatment of the boy has been severely criticised by the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), which accused him of ignoring the abuse of the boy and it called for him to be relieved of duties in the police force and prison service. The GHRA had contended that Chand’s failure to act constituted a dereliction of duty and could be considered passive complicity with torture. In this context, the GHRA has called on the council to investigate whether his “gross breach of medical ethics” and “gross incompetence” displayed in the incident warrant serious disciplinary action.

The doctor had said he did nothing wrong, and requested that the GHRA desist from associating him with torture. In a letter to the press, Chand said the human rights group “mischievously resorted to capricious, spurious and slanderous allegations which I suspect were crafted to satisfy some sordid or malicious intent.” He related that on the day he saw the patient, he was called by the police administration to see a patient at 6 pm, which he noted was a time “very much outside my normal working hours. I readily agreed to go and see the patient. I would like to ask the GHRA whether acting beyond the call of duty is an act of callous indifference.” He said the injured area was exposed and that was solely his concern and focus. “On examining the area, I concluded that the patient was suffering from 1st degree (superficial) burns of the genital area, upper thighs and lower buttocks (5-9%). I did not see any other ‘areas of brutality’ as alleged by the GHRA, nor did I see any signs of dehydration as alleged by the GHRA. I did mention verbally that the patient should have been carried to the hospital.

Again I ask the GHRA whether this is callous indifference. I had a stamped prescription which I had walked with in anticipation of any medication that needed to be prescribed and I did prescribe antibiotics/analgesics and an antiseptic cream. This fact was misleadingly left out of the article based on a release from the GHRA. Again I ask whether this is callous indifference or complicity to torture,” the doctor wrote.

Chand also said that he never indicated that the patient was okay; rather, given circumstances where no stationery was available and in a non-clinical setting “I did the best I could and acted with a clear conscience.”

He said he left the police station with the expectation that the patient would have been carried to a hospital as soon as possible. He added that he has been practising medicine in the Guyana Police Force for the past 12 years and always treated patients presented to him with care, sensitivity and concern, whether they are ranks from the force or detainees from the lock-ups or prisoners.

A senior medical practitioner had told Stabroek News on condition of anonymity, that when treating a patient, first and foremost the doctor must establish the person’s identity. The doctor had noted that in the case of the torture victim, Dr Chand could not have done so since he had admitted the patient had a bag over his head.