Daijiworld Media Network - Mumbai

Mumbai, May 31: A magistrate’s court has acquitted a Bhiwandi-based laboratory owner in a long-running case involving allegations of issuing a fake breast cancer pathology report using forged Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) letterhead.

The court delivered its verdict after nearly 15 years of proceedings, clearing accused Dr Arshad Shaikh of charges including cheating and forgery, citing insufficient evidence and serious gaps in the prosecution’s case.

The case dates back to 2010, when an FIR was registered at Bhoiwada Police Station after allegations surfaced that a woman’s tumour diagnosis had been fraudulently misrepresented. According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly created a fabricated pathology report dated September 12, 2009, by misusing a TMH letterhead and combining data from unrelated patients, leading to a false cancer diagnosis.

Investigators had claimed that the accused withheld diagnostic fees and generated the forged report without conducting a proper pathological examination. The case later intensified after hospital vigilance officials flagged inconsistencies in the documents and found mismatched case and requisition numbers belonging to other patients.

During treatment, the patient was initially advised chemotherapy and later referred for further care, but discrepancies in medical records were reportedly discovered when she was examined at Tata Memorial Hospital in Parel.

However, during trial proceedings, the court found that key witnesses were not examined, including the treating surgeon who had allegedly sent the tumour sample to the laboratory. The judge observed that the absence of crucial testimony weakened the prosecution’s attempt to establish a direct link between the sample collection and the alleged fraudulent report.

The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine the patient herself as a witness, and important forensic steps—such as DNA testing of tissue samples and seizure of electronic equipment allegedly used to fabricate documents—were not carried out.

In its 13-page judgment, the court held that the prosecution had not proven the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and granted the accused the benefit of doubt, stating that the investigative lapses created uncertainty about whether the tumour sample was ever processed at the accused’s laboratory.

The case, filed more than a decade and a half ago, concluded with the court ruling that procedural and evidentiary shortcomings were sufficient to overturn the charges.