|
©Bernama
(Used by permission)
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 15 (Bernama) -- Commissioner Datuk Mahadev
Shankar denied receiving pecuniary advantage or any other benefit from lawyer
Datuk V. K. Lingam who is implicated in the video clip brokering on judicial
appointments with a senior judge.
Instead, Mahadev said the reason given by Lingam to have him recused was because
he (Lingam) had sponsored an eye specialist from the United States to come to
Malaysia to treat Mahadev who was suffering from eye illness.
This, he said, was an attempt to scandalise and scuttle the proceedings of the
Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Mahadev, who declined to diqualify himself from hearing the inquiry, said the
allegation contained in Lingam's witness statement which was attached to support
the recusal application, was absolutely false.
"I categorically state that all medical expenses for my treatment for eye
disorders around mid-2007 at the Selayang Hospital were paid by the Government
of Malaysia. The hospital records will amply prove this," he said.
Mahadev said he was fully entitled to Government-paid medical treatment as he
was a retired judge of the Court of Appeal.
He said his treatment was at the hands of the most competent specialists in the
local hospital and he had total confidence in the Malaysian doctors who were
treating him.
Former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin applied to disqualify Mahadev with the
reason that Lingam had paid and brought an ophthalmologist from Mayo Clinic in
USA to treat Mahadev who was suffering from advanced macular degeneration. A
copy of Lingam's witness statement saying that he sponsored the visit of Dr
Albert O Edwards on the request by cardiologist Datuk Dr Joseph Eravelly, was
attached to support the application.
Lingam, in his witness statement claimed he purchased three return Malaysian
Airline tickets for Dr Edwards and his family after accepting Dr Eravelly's
request to sponsor Dr Edwards to treat his personal friend Mahadev.
Refuting Lingam's allegation, Mahadev said the suggestion that he was suffering
from advanced macular degeneration was a distortion of facts.
Meanwhile, Dr Eravelly, 71, in his statutory declaration refuted Lingam's claim.
He said he neither contacted Lingam nor Lingam requested him to bring Dr Edwards
to Malaysia to treat Mahadev.
Dr Eravelly said he did suggest to Mahadev to consult Dr Edwards at the Mayo
Clinic but Mahadev declined to do so as he was satisfied with the treatment he
was receving.
He also denied discussing Mahadev's medical condition with Lingam.
Mahadev explained that in early May last year, he had already begun receiving
lucentis treatment on his left eye for age-related macular degeneration and in
June last year, he also underwent treatment for topical treatment for an
external infection in his left eye.
Mahadev said the treatments he underwent were successful, and by late June last
year, he was sufficiently recovered, except for periodic observation and
outpatient treatment.
"I have led a normal life since then," said Mahadev who further reassured those
following the proceedings, that he could see well by listing out the names of
all lawyers seated in the front, second and third row of the lawyers' bench and
also identifying certain people seated in the front and back row of the public
gallery.
"As for fine print, I have no problems in picking up any document handed to this
court since Jan 14, and I read it all. On my hallucinations, I can see that my
mind is quite okay and you have watched me in action although my language can
sometimes be abrupt, as we (the commissioners) are under severe pressure. I am
sure you can judge if I'm sane, hallucinating or that I'm in any doubt that I'm
Mahadev Shankar," he said.
In response to Lingam's allegation, Mahadev said in early May last year, Dr
Eravelly did suggest that he should go to Mayo Clinic for treatment.
"I refused because I was quite content to be treated in Malaysia. After Dr
Eravelly spoke to my doctor, he agreed that I did not need to go to Mayo because
I was already receiving the best treatment available internationally here," he
said.
Mahadev denied Lingam's claim that he (Lingam) was persuaded by Dr Eravelly to
sponsor Dr Edwards to visit to Malaysia to treat him (Mahadev) and prescribed
the necessary medicine.
"Dr Eravelly is a senior medical practitioner and for him to be discussing my
medical condition with an unauthorised third party is a gross breach of medical
ethics. I cannot believe that Dr Eravelly would have discussed my case with VKL
(Lingam) as I never authorised him to do so and until this application was
received, there was no suggestion that he had done so.
Mahadev said he believed Lingam concocted that allegation.
Mahadev, in a lengthy response to the allegations, said he was so elated with
his progress and expertise of the Consultant Specialists in the Selayang
Hospital that he persuaded his old schoolmate, Mr Chan to come to the hospital
for treatment.
Mahadev said it was around July last year, that Dr Eravelly told him that he had
arranged for Dr Edwards to come to Malaysia to deliver some lectures.
"As a founder president of the Malaysian Medico-Legal Society, I have always had
a keen interest in medical matters and I said I would be most interested to
attend. He (Dr Eravelly) also informed me that Dr Edwards and his family would
be coming to Bangkok and thereafter, to Kuala Lumpur for a holiday," said the
commissioner.
Mahadev said that he was informed by Dr Eravelly that Dr Edwards was exploring
the possibility of setting up a link between Mayo Clinic and Selayang Hospital
and that Dr Edwards would be making his own assessment of the medical standards
at the hospital.
"At no time was I told by Dr Eravelly or anyone else that Lingam was sponsoring
this trip of Dr Edwards so that he could come to Kuala Lumpur to treat me and
prescribe my medication. It is very significant that Lingam has never claimed
that he ever spoke to me about his sponsorship or anything at all, prior to July
20, 2007," he said.
Mahadev said Dr Edwards was running a very tight schedule to cover all the
tourist sites and a side trip to Malacca and that if Lingam contended that a
couple of hours had been set aside to treat him (Mahadev), surely the copy of
the programme would have been provided.
He said there was not a single invoice, bill or receipt of Dr Edwards for his
(Dr Edwards') services.
On Lingam's claim that Dr Eravelly had suggested to him (Lingam) that Mahadev
needed a sponsor to cover the total expenditure of Dr Edward's trip costing
RM4,368, Mahadev said it was really adding insult to injury.
"I cannot believe that such a thing could have happened and further assert that
it is another concoction," he said.
Mahadev said on July 20 last year, he was sitting outside waiting for Mr Chan to
be treated at the hospital when Dr Eravelly walked in, followed by Dr Edwards
and Lingam.
Mahadev said Lingam's presence surprised him and that when he asked Dr Eravelly,
he (Dr Eravelly) had answered quietly that Lingam was accompanying Dr Edwards
and would also be attending the lecture.
He said there was nothing he could do about that, adding that there was no
mention of sponsorship even after Dr Eravelly formally introduced him (Mahadev)
to Dr Edwards and Lingam.
Mahadev also spoke about Lingam's allegation that Dr Edwards spent over an hour
with them during which time, the doctor treated him (Mahadev) and prescribed the
drug lucentis and avastin.
"This allegation is a slur not only on me but also on Dr Eravelly and Dr
Edwards. Firstly, Dr Edwards was already getting late for the lecture and in my
estimate, he could not have spent more than 10 or 15 minutes with us. To say he
spent over an hour, is a gross exaggeration," he said.
Mahadev said Dr Edwards was not registered to practise medicine in Malaysia and
could not therefore, properly treat or prescribe medicine for anyone here.
"Since Lingam alleges that he paid for Dr Edwards to visit KL (Kuala Lumpur) and
appears to have taken part of their passport formalities, I think it is a fair
inference that Lingam must have known about Dr Edwards' immigration visit pass
which would have precluded him from being involved in gainful employment in
Malaysia," he said.
Mahadev said from the conversation between Dr Edwards and the resident
specialist of the hospital and Dr Eravelly's comments, he (Mahadev) gathered
that Dr Edwards was taking an interest in the local medical procedures being
implemented by them for their patients, including him and Chan with the view to
incorporate the information in his lecture which was to follow shortly and
possibly, for evaluating the link up that Dr Eravelly had in mind.
At best, Mahadev said Dr Edwards might have noted with interest that the
techniques in Selayang Hospital were up to world standards.
Mahadev also said Lingam's claim that he (Mahadev) had thanked him (Lingam) and
told him that he was grateful and indebted to him was an outright fabrication
and totally untrue.
He said he agreed to Dr Eravelly's request to host a dinner at the Royal
Selangor Club, accordingly to the traditional standards of Malaysian hospitality
since he was a life member of that club, and not Dr Eravelly.
"I emphasise that Lingam was not invited to this dinner and this fact alone
would indicate that I did not consider myself under any obligation to him,
whatsoever. Dr Edwards was a friend of Dr Eravelly and an honored visitor to
Malaysia and I readily obliged," Mahadev said.
Mahadev questioned Lingam's ommission for not making a recusal application
against him at the start of the inquiry when Lingam's counsel R. Thayalan had
requested three other commissioners to be disqualified.
He said Lingam should have objected to him (Mahadev) sitting on the panel when
he took the witness stand since he claimed in his witness statement that he (Mahadev)
intended to get some illicit benefit from his (Lingam's) expenditure of RM4,368
for Dr Edwards' visit to KL with his family.
"I think I ought to underline that I was a private citizen at that time and it
is very curious that this man is claiming that he put himself in the position of
an unlicensed money lender on my account or at least, became my private
benefactor without asking for a written acknowledgment.
"The allegation is simply too preposterous to be dignified with a reasoned
dissent!," he said.
Mahadev also said that it was ironical that the application to recuse him was
not supported by Eusoff's affidavit as the applicant. Instead, Lingam's
affidavit was filed to support the application.
 |
News/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 106/2012: Accountant’s Report 2011
