Jipmer panel report confirms harassment of junior residents, recommends effective redress

A two-member Jipmer committee, which investigated allegations of physical harm and mental harassment levelled by a few junior residents against a senior faculty member of medicine, has confirmed that the incident did take place, and recommended further inquiry by competent authority.

The action taken report, a copy of which was obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) appeal by Jothivanan Perumal, one of the junior residents who raised harassment complaint with JIPMER authorities, and later escalated them to the Health Ministry said , “The incidents of physical and mental harassment by Dr. M. Vivekanandan, reported by junior residents from the Department of Medicine, such as twisting and pinching of the ears, poking with pen tip without cap, punching of abdomen, verbal abuse, and threatening to fail in the examinations have actually taken place”.

The fact-finding committee’s report, in its recommendations, called for evolving a redressal system at JIPMER for all resident doctors to address their grievances. “Further inquiry against the complaints may be undertaken by the competent authority”.

“We were kept in the dark about the outcome of the inquiry in which we participated. . It was only after my second appeal before the Central Information Commission that the authorities made available a copy of the report”, Dr. Jothivanan said.

The complainant says he intends to approach JIPMER authorities again to know what action has been taken following the panel completing its inquiry and submitting its report months ago.

The fact-finding committee comprising Bhawana A. Badhe as chairperson and Pankaj Kundra, member, with Madhusudhanan Ponnusamy (Associate Dean-Academic) assisting in coordinating the proceedings, was constituted following letters received from three residents who cited instances of physical and mental harassment, and of being deliberately failed in the MD general medicine professional exit examination conducted by the head of the department in December 2023.

The inquiry also took into consideration a letter by the residents of the Department of Medicine, written to the Resident Doctors’ Association had also subsequently been forwarded to the Dean (Academic), citing complaints against the faculty members, especially against the then Head of Department of Medicine, M. Vivekanandan.

With 30 outgoing residents and alumni of the department of medicine as signatories, the letter raised concerns that at least five residents had attempted self-harm over the past year or so. It also claimed that one in every seven residents was on anti-depressants in the medicine department, which had a failure rate in the exit exam that was much higher than any other of the 28-odd clinical departments. Five students had failed to clear the exit examination in general medicine, whereas in all other departments put together, only three candidates did not clear the exit test.

The panel drew its conclusions from a range of corroborating statements obtained during interviews with the complainants, their junior resident colleagues, faculty members of the Medicine Unit-I, and signatories to a common letter sent to the authorities.

In its report, the committee confirmed the veracity of the harassment claims based on the statement given to the committee by a faculty member in Medicine Unit-I, interviews with the two professors of medicine with whom the aggrieved students had first lodged formal complaints, and other faculty members of Unit I as also the issues of mental and physical harassment being flagged on a separate occasion by a senior resident (without naming the faculty).

The report noted that the professors could not pursue the complaint as they went on leave thereafter and could not meet the named faculty member, while similar issues raised by the senior resident was left unaddressed.

The panel was inconclusive about the motive behind the harsh methods used against the students. “Some of the residents felt that the acts of physical contact were with intent to correct mistakes made in patient care, and some others felt that there was an intent to harm them”, the panel noted.