Srinagar, May 28, KNT: In the wake of a patient’s death that has triggered widespread outrage in Srinagar, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Srinagar has ordered the suspension of several doctors and paramedical staff associated with Paras Hospital, terming the action as a measure pending the outcome of an ongoing inquiry. The order comes amid growing public anger and accusations that the hospital is functioning more as a “money minting enterprise” than a patient care facility.

The deceased, identified as Waseem Ahmad Pathan, reportedly died under questionable circumstances inside the hospital, prompting his family and scores of local residents to protest outside the hospital premises. The protesters accused Paras Hospital of gross medical negligence and unethical profiteering at the cost of patient lives.

According to the order issued by the CMO, eight medical professionals and staff have been barred from practice, both within Paras Hospital and elsewhere in the region. They are Dr. Sheikh Zahoor Ahmad (Surgeon), Dr. Shah Naveed (Assistant), Dr. Zahid and team (Anesthetist), Dr. Syed Dawood (Anesthetist), Dr. Khawar (Anesthetist), OT Technician concerned, In-charge ICU and Nurse Insha.

“All the mentioned doctors and paramedical staff are directed to be available for the inquiry proceedings as and when called. Non-compliance shall be viewed seriously under rules and guidelines in vogue,” the order states.

The action is the result of preliminary findings by an inquiry committee formed to investigate the incident. According to family, the patient had undergone a surgical procedure, but developed complications allegedly due to mismanagement and delays in postoperative care.

Family members of the deceased allege that despite repeated pleas, the patient was not attended to properly in the ICU, and that the hospital kept demanding additional payments even during critical phases of treatment.

“He walked into the hospital and never walked out. All they did was shift him from one unit to another and ask us to pay more. There was no urgency, no care, just invoices,” said one of the relatives of the deceased.

Netizens on social media had called for a broader investigation into the practices of Paras Hospital. “This hospital has become a business hub. We want accountability, not apologies,” said one netizens.

Health activists have welcomed the CMO’s intervention but are urging for systemic reforms. “Temporary suspensions are not enough. There needs to be transparent audits, standardised protocols, and a regulatory mechanism to monitor private hospitals,” said a senior health rights advocate. [KNT]

Srinagar: Eight doctors and paramedics have been barred from practising in any hospital following the death of a man from Pampore in Pulwama district, attributed to alleged medical negligence at Paras Hospital Srinagar.
According to a notice issued by the Chief Medical Officer Srinagar the mentioned medical staff have been temporarily suspended from practice pending the outcome of an inquiry.

The notice states, “As recommended by the inquiry committee and pending investigation into the death of Mr Waseem Ahmed Pathan, the administration of Paras Hospital is directed to stop the practice of the following doctors and paramedics until the inquiry is complete.”

According to the notice, all the suspended staff are prohibited from practising in any other hospitals during this period. They have been directed to be available for the inquiry team whenever called for investigation, with non-compliance considered a serious violation under applicable guidelines and rules.

The staff members who have been barred include Dr Sheikh Zahoor Ahmad (Surgeon), Dr Shah Naveed (Assistant), Dr Zahid (Anaesthetist) and his team, Dr Syed Dawood (Anaesthetist), Dr Khawar (Anaesthetist), the OT Technician concerned, the In-charge of ICU and Nurse Insha.

It is noteworthy that 34-year-old Waseem Ahmed Pathan, a resident of Bilal Colony, Pampore, died at Paras Hospital on the 24th of this month. The hospital administration said the death was due to multiple cardiac arrests, hemorrhagic shock and multi-organ failure. However, the circumstances leading to his demise are under investigation amid allegations of medical negligence.

Protests Erupt at Paras Hospital Srinagar as Pampore Youth Dies of Alleged Medical Negligence; Family Alleges Rs 5 Lakh Extortion, Terms Hospital a ‘Slaughter House’, Seeks Action from Health Minister and DC Srinagar

Srinagar, May 24, Tensions ran high at Paras Hospital Srinagar on Saturday as family members of a 34-year-old man from South Kashmir’s Pampore held a massive protest within the hospital premises, accusing the hospital, particularly a senior doctor, of gross negligence leading to the death of their loved one. The deceased, Waseem Ahmed Pathan, a resident of Bilal Colony Pampore, had recently returned from Saudi Arabia and was running a newly launched tour and travel business.

Waseem, according to his family, had been admitted to Paras Hospital Sonwar eight days ago after complaining of intestinal pain. He was attended to by Dr Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh, who diagnosed a cyst and recommended surgery, quoting a cost of Rs 2.5 lakh. The family agreed, paid the amount, and the surgery was carried out.
Sheikh Aamir, cousin of the deceased, told the news agency Kashmir News Trust that while Waseem was discharged after the initial surgery, his condition deteriorated rapidly and he had to be rushed back to the hospital. “Once again, we were charged another Rs 2.5 lakh for a second operation. We were kept in the dark and denied access to the ward. Later, we were told he had developed a 0.3 mm blood clot. If that was the cause of death, why wasn’t it detected and treated earlier? Why wasn’t the family informed during the first surgery?” he questioned.

In a harrowing account, Aamir alleged that during the patient’s final hours, Dr Zahoor was not present at the hospital and was instead giving instructions to junior staff over the phone. “We trusted the doctor with our brother’s life. But when it mattered the most, he wasn’t even there,” he said.

Waseem’s brother, visibly distraught, described the hospital as a “slaughter house” and a “money minting building.” He said his brother was unmarried, young, and full of dreams, having recently returned from the Gulf to start a new life in Kashmir. “Paras Hospital took Rs 5 lakh from us and returned a dead body,” he said bitterly.

As news of the incident spread, dozens of relatives and locals gathered outside the hospital and staged protests demanding action. The family raised slogans and urged the Health Minister Sakina Itoo and Deputy Commissioner Srinagar Dr Bilal Mohiuddin Bhat to launch an inquiry into the functioning of the hospital and hold the concerned doctor accountable.

The family also lamented the complete apathy shown by the hospital management. “No one from the administration came to us. We didn’t damage hospital property or shout slogans inside. Instead of consoling us, they hid themselves,” a family member said.

This incident is the latest in a string of controversies surrounding Paras Hospital Srinagar, which has increasingly been under public scrutiny for reported negligence and mismanagement. Multiple voices on social media have questioned the hospital’s commitment to ethical medical care, alleging that financial motives often take precedence over patient well-being.

All attempts to reach any official from the hospital proved futile.

The tragic death of Waseem Ahmed Pathan has reignited concerns about the accountability of private healthcare facilities in the region, with growing calls for the government to enforce stricter oversight and patient protection mechanisms.

The grieving family has vowed to continue their protest until justice is delivered and a case of negligence is formally registered against the concerned doctor and hospital authorities.

Accused of orchestrating one of the largest Ponzi schemes in India, which involve millions of investors, Roy was never sentenced, dying before any trial could be issued in the multiple cases against him. At the time of his death, he had spent years at the notorious Tihar prison in Delhi, only to be released on probation, as although even the law was not sure of the exact nature of his guilt.

When the Central Cooperative Companies Registry (CRCS) launched a portal for investors to claim funds raised by Roy companies, only ₹2,314 million rupees had been returned as of February 28, 2025, ₹15,775 million rupees available under an order of the Board of Securities and Exchange of India (SEBI). Many investors are still impossible to track, which adds to Enigma Roy left behind.

His fortune changed in 1976 when he took over a finance company with difficulties, Sahara Finance.

In the mid -1970s they were a tumultuous period in India. The very high inflation and the increase in unemployment were pushing people to look for alternatives to Staid bank deposits. It was a fertile terrain for the dubious financial schemes: the funds that promised exponential returns promised that they flourished. When Sahara launched her first background in Gorakhpur, …

गुप्ता ने यह भी बताया कि उन्होंने इस मामले की शिकायत पहले तत्कालीन DG (Prisons) को की थी, लेकिन कोई कार्रवाई नहीं हुई। इसके बाद उन्होंने अरविंद केजरीवाल से मुलाकात की और उन्हें पूरी स्थिति बताई। केजरीवाल ने उन्हें वीडियो बनाने को कहा लेकिन गुप्ता ने कहा कि वीडियो बनाना ठीक नहीं है, उन्हें खुद जेल आकर देखना चाहिए।

गुप्ता का कहना है कि उन्हें लगा कि इसके बाद एक्शन लिया जाएगा लेकिन ऐसा हुआ नहीं उलटा उन्हें ही रिटायरमेंट के वक्त फँसा दिया गया। बाद में कोर्ट केस चला वो निर्दोष साबित हुए, लेकिन तब तक उनके लिए चीजें मुश्किल की जा चुकी थीं

Jignesh Shah, often referred to as the “Exchange King,” was a prominent Indian entrepreneur who rose to fame as the founder of Financial Technologies India Ltd (FTIL). His vision for transforming India’s financial landscape led him to create several exchanges, with the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) being one of his flagship ventures. Shah’s ambition was to build efficient and transparent market platforms to streamline India’s financial ecosystem.

Background of NSEL

National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), a subsidiary of FTIL, was launched with the goal of facilitating seamless spot commodity trading in India. The exchange gained significant attention for its innovative approach, but it became infamous due to the NSEL scam, a financial scandal that shook the Indian financial market.

Jignesh Shah’s Early Life and Family

Jignesh Shah was born into a middle-class Gujarati family in Mumbai. His early life was marked by hard work and a keen interest in technology, which led him to pursue an engineering degree in electronics and telecommunications. Despite his modest beginnings, Shah’s entrepreneurial spirit propelled him into the world of finance.
Key Facts:
• Education: Shah graduated with a degree in electronics and telecommunications engineering.
• Family: Shah met his wife in second grade, and they later married. They have a daughter, with whom Shah shares a strong familial bond Shah’s journey from humble beginnings to leading a billion-dollar empire demonstrates his resilience and vision, though it also ended in controversy.

The NSEL Scam

The NSEL Scam is one of the most significant financial frauds in India’s history. It came to light in 2013, although the fraudulent activities had been ongoing for several years.

Mastermind Behind the Fraud

Jignesh Shah, alongside several other officials at NSEL, was accused of orchestrating the scam, which involved exploiting regulatory loopholes and engaging in fictitious trading to deceive investors. The scam’s fraudulent activities led to massive financial losses and legal repercussions for those involved.

The Scam Amount

The estimated scale of the fraud amounted to a staggering ₹5,574.34 crore (around $750 million at the time), with over 13,000 investors left vulnerable to the massive default on payments.

Modus Operandi of the NSEL Scam

The NSEL scam relied on exploiting gaps in the regulatory framework and created a false sense of legitimacy among investors:

1. Fictitious Trading: NSEL allowed trading of non-existent commodities, generating an illusion of high trading volumes and returns.
2. Paired Contracts: Investors were sold contracts that promised guaranteed returns, a clear violation of the spot exchange rules.
3. Collusion with Borrowers: Borrowers continued to trade on the exchange without repaying debts or delivering commodities.
4. Regulatory Loopholes: NSEL capitalized on the lack of oversight from multiple regulatory bodies, evading scrutiny.
5. False Assurances: Investors were misled with false assurances regarding the safety of their funds.

How the Scam Was Uncovered?

The NSEL scam began to unravel in July 2013 when the exchange defaulted on payments totaling ₹5,574 crore. This led to the suspension of trading operations and a subsequent investigation by authorities:
• Payment Crisis: Investors were left without their due payments, sparking outrage.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated probes into the scandal, uncovering widespread malpractices.

Arrest of Jignesh Shah

Jignesh Shah was arrested by the EOW on May 7, 2014, facing multiple charges, including fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. Though granted bail in August 2014, Shah was arrested again by the ED in 2016, continuing the legal battle surrounding the scam.

The Aftermath of the NSEL Scam

1. Ongoing Legal Battles
   Shah’s legal proceedings continue, with several cases still pending in Indian courts.
2. Asset Attachments
   The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached assets linked to Shah and his companies in an attempt to recover funds.
3. Regulatory Reforms
   The NSEL scam led to significant regulatory changes in India’s commodity markets. Stricter guidelines were introduced to prevent future frauds and ensure transparency in spot trading exchanges.
4. Investor Recovery Efforts
   While efforts to recover the lost funds continue, the full recovery of the defrauded amount remains uncertain. Legal action against defaulters and asset liquidation has provided some relief to investors.
5. Corporate Consequences
   FTIL, the parent company of NSEL, was declared “not fit and proper” to operate exchanges and was ordered to reduce its holdings in various market platforms.

Conclusion: Lessons from the NSEL Scam

The NSEL scam serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of inadequate regulatory oversight and systemic vulnerabilities. While it tarnished the reputation of Jignesh Shah as an entrepreneur, it also triggered significant reforms within India’s financial sector. The scam underscores the critical need for robust compliance mechanisms, transparent financial practices, and investor education to safeguard against such large-scale frauds in the future.
By understanding the NSEL scam, investors can remain vigilant and recognize the importance of thorough due diligence in their financial ventures.

The Ministry of Health& Family Welfare, Govt. of India has taken a serious action against Paras HMRI Hospital in Patna. According to an office memorandum issued by Dr. T.A.K. Singh, Addl. Dtr. CGHS, Patna, an Office Order No.- 2-149/2022/Paras Hospital/CGHS/4312 dated – 12-04-2024, several serious complaints and medical negligence etc. received against Paras HMRI Hospital, Patna. As per recommendation of Grievance Section (Hospital Cell), under CGHS Patna and as per recommendation of High Power Committee for action against HCOs under CGHS Patna, the Addl. Dtr. (CGHS Patna) decided to suspend the Paras HMRI Hospital from the panel of empanelled HCOs under CGHS Patna with immediate effect for a period of six months or till further orders.

The CGHS beneficiaries already admitted in the hospital for treatment prior to the issue of this order shall continue to be provided treatment of CGHS rates till their discharge within a period of seven days.

Manoranjan Roy, Chairman of Pincon Group recently arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Kolkata, in connection with a Rs 638 crore fraud of collecting deposits from public, by offering them fraudulent money-doubling schemes, has been remanded to ED custody till September 04 by the Special PMLA Court.

His associate Kaustuv Ray, arrested on July 18, in this case continues to be in Judicial Custody. Pincon Group collected in total Rs. 638 crore from several investors as deposits under various schemes, ED said in a statement on Saturday.

ED initiated investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the  alleged irregularities in the Pincon Chit fund scheme, on the basis of FIR registered by Khejuri Police Station, Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, against the Board of Directors and other officials of Pincon Group of Companies under various sections of Indian Penal Code  1860 and West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013.

Directorate of Economic Offences, Kolkata Police had also filed Chargesheet in this case. ED investigation revealed that Pincon group of companies controlled by Manoranjan Roy and his associates collected money from public by fraudulent re-presentations and luring them with high rate of interest upon maturity of deposits collected under different schemes like MIS, FD & RD. However, they failed to pay the investors their dues on maturity.

The Pincon Group diverted proceeds of crime to various entities/persons. Ray, is the owner of Kolkata TV and Rose TV. ED investigating various cases of money laundering against Ray has already attached several properties owned by him or his companies. He is known for his close links to West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee.

Hit and run cases are one of the most prevalent road accidents in India. According to a report by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport² research wing in 2019 road accidents in India kill almost 1.5 lakh people annually which accounts for almost 11 percent of accident-related deaths in the world. Section 161(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act says that a “hit and run motor accident” means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained despite reasonable efforts for the purpose. Section 279, 338 and 304A are imposed in a hit and run incidents.

• Section 279-Rash driving or riding on a public way.-Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

• Section 338-Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

• Section 304A-Causing death by negligence.-Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Facts of the case-

At 4:50 am in the early hours of 10.01.1999, a black BMW car driven by Sanjeev Nanda hit 7 persons killing 6 of them at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. It was alleged that when he hit the people few of them flew in the air and hit the bonnet and a few were stuck under the car and were dragged on to a point where the car hit the central verge. It is also alleged that Sanjeev Nanda saw beneath the car but one of the co-accused named Manik Kapoor asked him to rush, leaving the injured shouting and crying for help. SI Jagdish Pandey followed the oil trail of the car and traced it to Siddharth Gupta’s residence at Golf Links where his father Rajeev Gupta with his servants Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath washed the car and destroyed the evidence. On 11 January 1999 Sanjeev Nanda and his friends were arrested and the following charges were framed :

• Section 201/34 IPC was framed against accused Sanjeev Nanda, Manik Kapur
• Section 201/34 IPC was framed against accused Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh Rana and Bhola Nath for tampering with the evidence by washing the car.
• Section 304(I)/308/35 IPC was framed against accused Sidharth Gupta. Which was discharged by the Hon’ble High Court later on.
• Section 304(I)/308/34 IPC was framed against accused Sanjeev Nanda and Manik Kapur for causing the deaths of Rajan Kumar, Peru Lal, Ram Raj, Mehandi Hasan, Nasir and Gulab and for attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Manoj Malik.

On 14 January 1999 Sunil Kulkarni, a key witness to the incident recorded his statement which was discharged by the prosecution questioning his credibility but was brought back as a witness on a plea by the prosecution where he identified the accused Sanjeev Nanda. Manoj Malik the survivor testified that the incident took place by a truck rather than a car but the broken number plate and other damaged parts helped prove that the incident took place by a car not by a truck as testified by him. The bloodstains on the steering wheel matched with the blood group of Sanjeev Nanda which were also found on his jersey further proving that the car was being driven by Sanjeev Nanda. It is important to note that many witnesses turned hostile in this case which led to Sanjeev Nanda being relieved on bail in October 1999.

The 2008 Judgement

In 2008 the trial court found Sanjeev Nanda guilty citing Alister Anthony Pareira’s case³ decided by the Bombay High Court.

• Convict Sanjeev Nanda was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304(II) IPC with benefit under Section 428 Crpc
• Rajeev Gupta was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs 10000 under Section 201 of IPC.
• Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs 100 each under Section 201 of IPC.

The 2009 Appeal and Judgement

In 2009 Sanjeev Nanda filed an appeal in the High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of the trial court.

THE APPEAL

• He challenged that right to a fair trial where the prosecution failed to prove the case and the learned judge didn’t appreciate the facts, misapplied the law and showed prejudice against the rich and mighty.
• A fair trial also includes a speedy trial which is a right granted under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Section 309 of Crpc. He appealed that the trial could have been completed within a period of 4 to 5 years but it took around 9 years which ruined his career educationally as well as professionally.
• The prosecution failed to prove its case through reliable witnesses and all the three witnesses were of questionable character and credit.
• Many facts involved were applied on the basis of circumstantial and scientific pieces of evidence which was avoidation of principles made down by the Supreme Court Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Delhi 1973⁴ and State of Karnataka Vs. Satish (1998)⁵.
• The accused appealed that he was wrongly tried and found guilty for an offence under Section 304 (II) IPC.

The Judgement

• The court acknowledged the fact that the appellant had to undergo a lot of trauma and agony while facing the trial for 9 years but it was all on his own wrongdoings.
• The court was also aware of the Rs. 65 lakh compensation that he paid to the family of the victims but believed it to be an action-driven by personal motives of getting a bail rather than compassion towards them.
• They pointed out the fact that every possible effort was done to destroy the evidence and manipulate the witnesses to escape justice through money
• It was held that the accused does not deserve any kind of leniency in his sentence and sentenced Sanjeev Nanda to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A IPC.
• Since the conviction against Sanjeev Nanda has been converted from 304 (II), 304A so naturally Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath will be guilty under Section 201 (III) of IPC.
• Rajeev Gupta was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs 10,000.
• Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath were sentenced to 6 months of rigorous imprisonment
• Proceedings under Section 340 Crpc were initiated against the witness Sunil Kulkarni for deliberately giving false evidence

The 2012 Appeal and Judgement

In 2012 an appeal was filed by Delhi Police in the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking to alter his conviction from 304A to 304 (II) IPC and increased his sentence. They appealed that the accused didn’t have an Indian driving license and his negligence along with intoxication is sufficient to prove ‘knowledge’ which is mentioned as an ingredient under section 304 (II) IPC thus he deserves to be held guilty under section 304 (II) IPC.

The respondent replied that the incident took place almost 13 years back and after facing a trial for almost 9 years he also underwent 2 years of imprisonment as sentenced by the Hon’ble High Court. He claimed that over such a long period he has learned his lesson and started to rehabilitate himself into society. He also contended that he also paid compensation to the victims out of compassion and it would be humiliating for him to be sent to jail again.

The supreme court after hearing both sides decided to quash the judgement by the high court and restore the trial court judgement but they felt that the sentence given by the high court was appropriate and the accused does not have to return to jail. In addition to this, they ordered the accused to pay Rs 50 Lakhs to the Union of India which will be used to assist victims of a motor vehicle accident where the vehicle owner-driver etc can not be traced also sentenced him to 2 years of community service.

Conclusion

Whether justice was served or not will always be a matter of debate but one thing is for sure that the Sanjeev Nanda case will go down as another infamous case where people with deep pockets played with the loopholes of the law which brings us to an even bigger debate about strengthening the law and institutions of justice.

The need to amend section 304A has been raised several times in the courts and the parliament the supreme court favored amending this section in 2007 and then again in 2019 a bill to amend this was also tabled in the parliament in 2007, 2015, 2016 and the latest being in 2019 but remains to be a long-awaited reality.