Sharma J (delivering oral judgment):

One Adthinarayanan, an infant, met with an accident on 19 August 1970, and as a result of that accident his leg was amputated above the knee. He filed an action for damages against Koon Hoi Chow who was the driver of the van which is said to have knocked into the said infant. The claim of the infant is the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 168 of 1971 (Adthinarayanan v. Koon Hoi Chow. The defendant in that suit entered an appearance on 9 August 1971 and no defence has to-date been filed in that suit - I understand with the consent of the solicitors for the plaintiff so that the defendant may get all the information necessary to ascertain whether the amputation of the leg, was at all necessary. The present application is filed by Koon Hoi Chow who is the defendant in Civil Suit No. 168 of 1971. Pretam Singh, the respondent in the present application, is the surgeon who performed the operation on the infant. The applicant alleges that the injuries which the infant actually received were not such that should have necessitated the amputation of the leg provided proper care was exercised by the surgeon in charge at the Ipoh Hospital, the inference being that it was the negligence of the respondent which aggravated the injuries. It is some-what significant that the X-rays which were taken of the infant at the Ipoh Hospital should be "entirely missing from the hospital" and the hospital authorities should "presume" them to be "mislaid or stolen". (See the letter from the orthopaedic Registrar dated 12 June 1971.)

The applicant's solicitors requested the infant's solicitors to get the detail's of the injuries found on the infant and the treatment given to him while he was in the lpoh Hospital. The infant's solicitors authorised the hospital authorities to supply, the information to the applicant. It seems the respondent required a "written and witnessed" consent by or on behalf of the infant before he could disclose the "patient's medical condition". This was also done but inspite thereof the hospital did not supply the information and took shelter under the decision of the respondent not to issue "any further written reports". It, however, does appear that some report was given by the respondent and a copy of it supplied to the applicant's solicitors.

The applicant not having received any satisfaction from the hospital authorities has now applied under s. 44 of the Specific Relief Ordinance 1950. An order under s. 44 of the Specific Relief Ordinance is in its nature an order of mandamus which is a peremptory order of the Court commanding somebody to do that which it was his clear legal duty to do. The applicant seeking such an order must have a legal right to the performance of such duty by the person against whom the order is sought. I have been told by learned Counsel for the applicant that he has not been able to find any case or authority where such an order has in similar circumstances been issued against an officer serving in a hospital. Maybe in other countries the need for such an application has never arisen and therefore no case is to be found in the law reports which may be relevant or on all fours with the present case. Maybe elsewhere such an information is not withheld. The respondent in his affidavit does not say why he was not prepared to give the information. The State, generally speaking, has the reputation of being honest and bravely above board in its conduct and dealings and so should be its officers who serve the public but the matter has all the same to be decided according to law and the applicant has to bring himself within the framework of s. 44 of the Specific Relief Ordinance, 1950. I have not been referred to any statute or legislation under which the hospitals and the medical services in this country are established or operate. Such a statute would have thrown some light on the legal rights of the applicant and the legal duties of the respondent. The Medical