Doctor unable to determine if Nepalese woman underwent abortion
A doctor who examined a Nepalese woman standing trial for abortion told the Bukit Mertajam Sessions Court today that she could not ascertain whether the accused had a spontaneous or procedural forced miscarriage.
Dr Anusha Asairinachan from the Seberang Jaya Hospital's obstetrics and gynaecology department said she could not determine the circumstances for Nirmala Thapa's alleged abortion.
When examined by deputy public prosecutor Siti Aishah Ramlan, she said Nirmala was diagnosed to have had a complete miscarriage, with the possibility of undergoing an abortion procedure called Dilation and Curettage (D&C).
She told the court that she, a specialist named Dr Sazali Aksani and another doctor had examined Nirmala on October 10 after she was referred to their department via the hospital's emergency department by the police.
"The patient was comfortable when we examined her. We tried to take her medical history but she could not tell us much as we were speaking to her in English.
"We examined her abdomen, perinum and did a scan. We also conducted a urine pregnancy test on her, which came back positive. It is normal for it to be positive (even after an abortion) because it normally takes two weeks for the urine to test negative," she said.
Dr Anusha also told the court that they found "no remarkable findings" from their examination.
Nirmala was charged in January under Section 315 of the Penal Code with allegedly committing an act to prevent a child from being born alive or to cause it to die after birth, without the pure intention to save her own life as a mother, on October 9 last year at Poliklinik Ng in Taman Ciku, Bukit Mertajam at about 3pm.
The former factory worker is believed to be the first woman in Malaysia to be charged with the offence.
When cross-examined by Nirmala's lawyer E. Gnanasegaran, who asked about the problems they had communicating with the accused, Dr Anusha said they had to refer to the police report for her history.
"From my memory, we tried (to talk to her) in English, but she probably could not understand the questions we asked her," she said.
Gnanasegaran objected to the use of the police report as his client's history, arguing that a person's medical history was important to help doctors determine how to examine and treat their patients.
"They spoke to her in English, which she did not understand. Furthermore, she was still in police custody at the time of the examination," he told judge M. Vijayalakshmi, who agreed that the evidence was inadmissible.
Dr Anusha agreed with Gnanasegaran's suggestion that without knowing Nirmala's medical history, she could only conclude that there was only a possibility of a miscarriage.
"If at all the miscarriage was a procedural miscarriage, and under what circumstances it was performed, the best person to answer those questions would be the doctor who had treated her, isn't it?" Gnanasegaran said.
When Dr Anusha said she agreed, the lawyer told the court that the prosecution should be bringing witnesses who were relevant to the case.
Vijayalakshmi fixed April 2 to continue the hearing. – March 25, 2015.
