BUKIT MERTAJAM: The retrial of a Nepali woman charged with abortion began in the Bukit Mertajam Sessions Court yesterday with enforcement officers from the Health Ministry admitting that they have no jurisdiction to investigate patients under the Private Healthcare, Facilities and Services Act 1998.

Mohd Nasir Mohamad Noor from the ministry’s private medical practice control unit (UKAPS) initially testified that the unit was empowered to probe staff and anyone else involved in the running of private healthcare premises.

However, when questioned by lawyer E Gnasegaran, representing Nirmala Thapa, Mohd Nasir could not answer which section in the Act stated that the unit has the power to investigate patients at private clinics.

Nirmala was charged last month under Section 315 of the Penal Code with preventing a child from being born alive or causing it to die after birth, without the pure intention to save her life as a mother. She allegedly committed the offence at Poliklinik Ng in Taman Ciku, Bukit Mertajam on Oct 9 last year.

Mohd Nasir told the court that the Act also stated the do’s and don’ts for doctors in private healthcare facilities.

Earlier, when questioned by deputy public prosecutor Siti Aishah Ramlan, Mohd Nasir said that UKAPS was tasked with monitoring and checking private hospitals and clinics.

He said that during the routine check at the clinic where Nirmala was detained, officers found her lying on a bed in the treatment room in a weak state, and also medical equipment, including a suction device, a lithotomy bed and a dilation and curettage set, as well as gauze with blood.

He said the discovery made them suspect that some sort of crime had taken place.

Gnasegaran told Mohd Nasir that he was not a doctor, so he could not be sure what treatment Nirmala was there for.

The lawyer said it was also possible that the medical equipment found in the room were used on other patients the day before.

Nurse M Parimala, who was also involved in the raid, told the court what happened when the unit checked on the clinic.

During cross-examination, Gnasegaran asked if a GP (general practitioner) could perform an abortion.

Parimala said there was a restriction against it as stated in the Act’s Section 39(1) covering restrictions on the use of premises.

The third witness called by the prosecution, Dr Zuraini Abdullah, who is state UKAPS assistant director, also cited Section 39(1) to argue that private clinics cannot provide services that were beyond what their licences allowed. —  The Malaysian Insider

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on February 27, 2015.