A doctor’s death six months ago, after developing medical complications following seven weeks in intensive care, did not merit a magisterial inquiry as requested by the patient’s family, a Magistrates’ Court has concluded.

The ruling delivered by Magistrate Lara Lanfranco concerned an application filed by the wife and children of Naged Megally who died last July 5.

The specialist in foetal medicine was admitted to hospital in May in critical condition and after being treated in the intensive care unit at Mater Dei Hospital for seven weeks and a number of surgeries later, his condition took a turn for the worse, resulting in his death a few days later.

The patient’s family requested a magisterial inquiry to investigate the medical treatment administered to Megally or the lack thereof, claiming that during his time in intensive care there were certain aspects of healthcare which may have contributed to the doctor’s death.

Before deteriorating, the patient’s condition had improved to such extent that hospital staff were considering transferring him out of the ITU to another ward, they said.

According to his family, the patient’s long and complicated medical history was not taken into consideration before certain medication was administered and moreover, his family had allegedly not been consulted before certain life or death decisions were taken.

Nor were they granted immediate access to his medical file, claiming “hidden reasons” behind this.

They believed that hospital authorities had viewed Megally more as an inconvenience rather than a patient.

The family requested a post-mortem, but that procedure was never carried out.

The court heard numerous lengthy testimonies by the patient’s relatives and also by several hospital specialists before reaching its conclusions.

Timeline of events

On the same day of Megally’s death, his family filed a criminal complaint calling for a magisterial inquiry to address their doubts. Police flagged the matter to the duty magistrate.

The inspector handling the case confirmed that hospital authorities were prepared to issue a medical certificate stating Megally’s cause of death which they claimed to be well known.

The magistrate was informed about this and was also given a brief summary of the family’s allegations.

The magistrate turned down the request for a magisterial inquiry to conduct further investigations into Megally’s death but directed the police to carry out further investigations should they sense the need to do so.

The police were about to kickstart investigations when they were informed that Megally’s family lawyers had called upon the Magistrates’ Court to order a magisterial inquiry.

Police investigations never took off as a result of that application.

The hospital had also prepared all documentation necessary to carry out an autopsy as requested by Megally’s family and to issue the death certificate specifying the final cause of death once the post-mortem was carried out.

But it turned out that the patient’s family never put their signature to greenlight the autopsy.

Naged Megally (left) with his wife and children. Photo: Megally’s family

Magisterial conclusions

The magistrate concluded that in Megally’s case, a cause of death existed and still exists and consequently, it did not qualify for the opening of a magisterial inquiry in terms of law.

The court now had to determine whether this case merited further investigations under the umbrella of a magisterial inquiry to determine whether the hospital may have contributed in one way or another to Megally’s death through negligence.

After hearing all witnesses and scrutinising all documents put forward, including the patient’s medical file, Magistrate Lanfranco concluded there was no prima facie evidence to have the case investigated further by an inquiring magistrate.

Moreover, at no point was any individual identified as who should answer to the family’s allegations.

The family had not signed for the autopsy which the hospital was prepared to conduct, and that signature was necessary for the autopsy to proceed.

Instead, the family started proceedings before the Magistrates’ Courts calling for an inquiry and those proceedings brought everything to a halt.  The family did not deny this, saying they acted upon legal advice when insisting that the autopsy was to be carried out within the ambit of a magisterial inquiry.

They also claimed they were never told to sign any papers by hospital authorities to that effect.

Without going into the merits of the case, the court observed further that if, as claimed by Megally’s family, there was negligence on the part of the police, then they ought to have taken a different route.

The family could have followed challenge proceedings against the Police Commissioner in terms of law.

As for disagreement over medical policies or procedures adopted in hospital during Megally’s treatment, such an issue did not fall within the court’s remit nor was it covered by the application filed by the family when requesting a magisterial inquiry and were not to be used with the aim of authorising such inquiry.