Srivatsa v Secretary of State

Dr Kadiyali Madhava Srivatsa is a General Practitioner working in the National Health Service (NHS) in U. He began working for a practice known as The Surgery in College Road, Woking in 2004. His employer at that time was Surrey Primary Health Care Trust, or the part of the PCT known as Surrey Community Health. On 31 March 2013 Primary Care Trusts were abolished and their liabilities were taken over by the Secretary of State for Health. On 1 May 2011, the Practice Surgeries Ltd was awarded the contract by the Primary Care Trust to run the surgery and the GP service was transferred to it from the Primary Care Trust to THE PRACTICE SURGERIES LIMITED using TUPE transferred against his will. The TUPE transfer was reversed for the first time and so hailed as a legal milestone.

[https://www.isobl.com/kadiyali-srivatsa/ DR KADIYALI MADHAVA SRIVATSA issued proceedings in the ET on May 3rd, 2011. Both Surrey Community Health and the Practice Surgeries Ltd were named as respondents. Dr Srivatsa alleged unlawful discrimination, breach of contract, detriment for making protected disclosures, constructive unfair dismissal and arrears of pay. The disclosures on which he relied all took place before January 2009 that was concealed.

The last specified instance of the detriment un-lawful removal from the Performer's Group List on 16 August 2010. This act of torturous conspiracy was started when he challenged his employer for allowing nurses with no medical qualification or experience to clinically diagnose, advice and treat patients as their doctor in the "Pilot Nurse-led Practice".

[https://www.isobl.com/kadiyali-srivatsa/ DR KADIYALI MADHAVA SRIVATSA identified the wrong diagnosis, advice treatment of patients led to complication. This is unethical because prudent doctors would have treated or not treated the was the doctor or nurse did. This is Medical Negligence and as a doctor, Dr Srivatsa raised concern to protect fellow human and prevent nurses bring disrepute to his profession. The result of this resulted in victimisation. The World Medical Association will support and should encourage the international community, the National Medical Associations and fellow physicians to support, the physician and his or her family in the face of threats or reprisals resulting from a refusal to condone the use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Dr Srivatsa, argued the Secretary of state health licencing nurses with no medical qualification, training under supervision and examination and registration by the General Medical Council resulted in inflicting pain, suffering and complication are "Quackery" and so unlawful.

DR KADIYALI MADHAVA SRIVATSA Vs SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, 26 April 2018

The issue on this appeal is whether Dr Srivatsa is entitled to prosecute an action in the High Court against his former employers.

Dr Srivatsa is a General Practitioner. He began working for a practice known as The Surgery in College Road, Woking in 2004. His employer at that time was Surrey Primary Health Care Trust or the part of the PCT known as Surrey Community Health. On 31 March 2013 Primary Care Trusts were abolished and their liabilities were taken over by the Secretary of State for Health. On 1 May 2011, the Practice Surgeries Ltd was awarded the contract by the Primary Care Trust to run the surgery and the GP service was transferred to it from the Primary Care Trust.

Judge Nicol J in his judgment is at [2016] EWHC 2916 (QB) agreed the Secretary Of State Health respondents say that he is not entitled to prosecute an action in the High Court against his former employers, because before the action began he had issued and then withdrawn proceedings in the Employment Tribunal ("the ET") which were formally dismissed after the action had begun.

The judge decided against Dr Srivatsa at on the ground that he should have made it clear (either expressly or by necessary implication) that he had it in mind to follow the withdrawal of the ET proceedings by proceedings in the High Court. I do not consider that the burden on a claimant operating under the 2004 Rules was that high (although an express reservation is now required by the 2013 Rules).

As both Dyson and Elias LJJ have explained, the question is a more neutral one. The judge distinguished Nayif on the ground that Mr Nayif had pursued his claim in the ET but had lost on the jurisdictional ground, whereas Dr Srivatsa had simply withdrawn.

LORD JUSTICE LEWISON, agree with Mr Bedloe that this would have the result that Dr Srivatsa would have been in a better position had he fought and lost in the ET than he was in fact in by recognising that the jurisdictional problems could be overcome by withdrawing and then starting the High Court action. While I would not go so far as calling that "perverse" Mr Bedloe's point is, in my judgment, a powerful one.

In my judgment, the circumstances at the time of the withdrawal of the ET proceedings do not lead to the conclusion that Dr Srivatsa intended to concede the merits of his claim. In respectful disagreement with the judge, I would hold that he is not precluded from continuing his High Court claim. The effect of the judge's decision is that, in the words of Mummery LJ in Sajid:

"by a neat, technical swipe the [Defendants] would have eliminated a substantial claim without any tribunal or court having heard any evidence or argument about it. That seems to be a decision to which this court is not driven by any principle of the cause of action estoppel."

Lord Justice Kitchin and Lady Justice Asplin agreed to LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and allowed the appeal.

RESEARCH

Dr Kadiyali M Srivatsa associated spreading Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) in hospitals to multiple endotracheal intubation and published a letter, "Fixation of Endotraceal tube", was published in Anastasia in 1900. In 1992, he identified "Intravenous cannulation as a major cause of spreading emerging treatment resistant infection in the hospitals. He tested alternate methods and published a letter in Anaestesia Analgesia - Cannulation of Vessels Using a Spring-Loaded Device . This technique was assessed in 50 infants (92%weighing <4 kg) when cannulation by the conventional method had failed. Cannulation was successful in 47 (94%) of these infants on the first attempt; only 3 (6%) required a second attempt, and patented Cannula with introducer, needle protecting guard and blood collecting system in1992. Article explaining the device and method was published in Managing Infections in 2005 to help slowdown spreading "MRSA in hospitals" in 2005. Major cannula manufacturers, were stifled the disruptive technology to protect their Saftey cannula-is a peripheral IV catheter with a passive fully automatic needlestick protection. It is a single-use device to generate intravascular and tissue access to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids and blood intravascularly. The cannula is also indicated for subcutaneous infusion therapies and 300 PSI power injector applications (18-24G).

He challenged the device manufacturers, claiming his method will reduce the number of attempts and help reduce the spread of Antibiotic resistant Bacterial infection in the hospital. bacteria will create an army of treatment resistant bacteria, viruses and fungus that threaten medical profession and humanity. The U-Cannula, Alternative method of cannulation could reduce needle-stick injuries and the spread of hospital-acquired infections, was published and promoted in Medica 2006, as the British Innovation. The article "Safer than Safty Cannula, and Reducing medical waste and revolutionising was identified as a product that help reduce medical contaminated waste, and spreading MRSA and other infections in hospitals.

As the number of people getting antimicrobial resistant infections treatment increased rapidly in hospital the authorities started sterlisation using strong chemicals and alternate methods to stop the spread. Dr Kadiyali Srivatsa, wrote to the Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair, requesting him to stop using strong chemicals, because the treatment resistant bacteria will kill friendly bacteria allowing them to colonise and spread. His hypothesis was authenticated by Warwick University in

Antibacterial soap containing triclosan (0.3%) was no more effective than plain hand washing soap at reducing bacterial contamination when used under ‘real-life’ conditions. The present study provides practical information that may prove useful for both industry and governments.

References

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCAiv93: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/936.html&query=(srivatsa)+AND+(kadiyali) https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=iU4ODAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PT43.w.5.3.0 Maya Bring Tears Of Happiness Maya Bring Tears Of Happiness Dr Maya App (iPhone) Maya Fighting Infections Saving Lives Superbug Pandemic And How To Prevent Them Youtube Videos Elephant in the doctors room

This article "Srivatsa v Secretary of State" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Srivatsa v Secretary of State. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

---