Suspended JMO lands in hot soup after manipulating suspension order

• Suspension to be extended  

By Sheain Fernandopulle   

Consultant Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) Dr. Ruhul Haq who is in hot water after having found to have acted against the suspension imposed by the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC), is likely to face an extension, Daily Mirror learns.  

According to informed sources, numerous parties have demanded from the SLMC that the suspension of the particular JMO should be extended, which is due to end on August 20.  
As such, the SLMC is contemplating extending the suspension.

  
In addition, SLMC President Prof Vajira Dissanayake told Daily Mirror that the SLMC had sought legal advice as to take further action against the JMO.  
“We are currently seeking legal advice in order to facilitate disciplinary action against the JMO,” Prof Dissanayake said.  

Meanwhile, the Health Ministry has launched a ministerial-level investigation into Dr. Ruhul Haq, who had practiced notwithstanding the suspension.  
According to Director General of Health Services Dr. Asela Gunawardena, he had sanctioned the suspension of Dr. Haq on January 02, 2023, following the receipt of a letter from the SLMC announcing their decision.  

Having said that, he stated that the responsibility of enforcing the suspension rests upon the head of the relevant institution. Nevertheless, he confirmed that a thorough investigation at a Ministerial level will be conducted to delve into the issue.  

Furthermore, Dr. Gunawardena highlighted that the Public Service Commission has been notified of the situation and a response from them is pending before any further disciplinary measures can be determined.  

The particular JMO has been practicing despite the suspension and has conducted two crucial postmortems of Dinesh Schaffter and the death of the three-year-old child at Lady Ridgeway Hospital following kidney surgery last week.  

However, the postmortem reports of the aforementioned two incidents submitted by Dr. Ruhul Haq, contained contradictory findings as ruled by the court.