Abstract
The case is divided into two parts, and an epilogue is provided to the students at the end of the discussion.
Case A discusses the protagonist’s arrival at a hospital that is affected by a hidden power struggle between opposing parties. In an attempt to exercise his influence and improve the hospital’s operations, the protagonist introduces reforms and changes to the hospital’s processes. However, as a result of his increasing influence and knack for not respecting the status quo, he realizes that there are people in the management who feel threatened by his influence and plan to damage his status in the hospital. At the conclusion of Case A, he has been handed a letter that informs him of a disciplinary committee case against him on serious allegations of misuse of authority, torture and even sexual harassment. He is concerned that he has been set up by his opponents, who have resources and credibility that might make it difficult for him to escape from this situation unscathed. Thus, in the given situation the protagonist weighs his possible options.
Case B concerns how the protagonist responds to his disciplinary committee case. Policy changes previously initiated by the protagonist and his alliance with the vice-president serve as important tools. They neutralize the resources that are used by the protagonist’s opponents in an investigation against him. In the end, the protagonist, Murtaza; therefore, successfully comes out of this situation unscathed.
The epilogue discusses how the protagonist’s initial alliance with the vice-president, in light of changing circumstances, begins to wither away as the mutual opposition they both once shared also begins to weaken.
The Committee Hearing
Murtaza decided to take Dr Hadia into confidence and asked for her help. After some discussion, they both came to the conclusion that since the hospital had achieved an independent status, the textile management did not have a right to investigate one of the Ayesha Memorial Hospital’s employees. Subsequently, Dr Hadia wrote a letter that stated that as this was an internal matter, the hospital administration would investigate the allegations (Exhibit 1). A new disciplinary committee was then created at the level of the hospital administration to investigate the allegations against Murtaza (Exhibit 2).
The committee, consisting of members from the hospital administration, started the investigations but shifted attention towards the complainant and summoned many people within the organization. The committee interviewed four employees who had been labelled as witnesses to Murtaza’s actions. All the witnesses denied the allegations and admitted that Nawaz had a bad reputation and was involved in misappropriating hospital funds. Murtaza’s reputation was unscathed from these allegations.
Nafees, Intensive Care Unit incharge at Ayesha Memorial Hospital, said:
Although Murtaza and I were not immediate colleagues, but being the employees of the same organization we saw each other very often. I recognized all his efforts for the betterment of the system, but I could not praise him openly because my immediate bosses were against him and I was compelled to obey orders given by them. When I came to know about the incident and disciplinary committee, I was 100 per cent sure that it was a false accusation.
A senior medical officer, Dr Saqib, said:
Yes, he exceeded his authority many times to counter the opposition he faced, but such an action by Murtaza was impossible to believe.
The investigation committee cross-questioned Nawaz until he broke under pressure to reveal that he was encouraged by higher-ups within the organization to falsely accuse Murtaza. The disciplinary committee then compiled a fact-finding report and presented it to the concerned authorities. The report said that Nawaz’s confession about the higher-ups being involved was a means of scapegoating, and his confession that he was bribed could not be proven to be true. Murtaza was able to survive this situation with his reputation and integrity intact.
Appendix
Internal Inquiry Matter
AYESHA TEXTILES (PVT). LIMITED
September 07, 2015.
To:
Subject:
Your circular dated 5th September, 2015 refers: -
1) Copy of letters graciously approved by AGL on 6th March, 2015 (Organogram of AMHL) and 25th August, 2015 (Independent Administration of AMHL) are enclosed.
2) Above in view, it is suggested that your above referred circular be cancelled and a copy be provided for our official record. However, your concern has been noted and forwarded to our internal disciplinary committee for legal action (if deemed appropriate).
3) For future reference of professional code of conduct, all official matters concerning hospitals in Lahore should be addressed/intimated to respective hospital administrators, with intimation to vice-president, avoiding direct intervention at lower levels.
4) Your cooperation is solicited please.
DC Internal Committee
AYESHA TEXTILES (PVT). LIMITED
Inter Office Note
(Admin Office)
Subject:
1. A disciplinary committee composed as under will assemble at 1400 hours on 10th September, 2015 for initial investigation of the complaint of ex-employee of AMHL (Mess Supervisor), Mr Nawaz. The disciplinary committee will assess and forward recommendations based on merits of the complaint, the evidences offered and relevant facts:
President: Dr Malik Atif, Director Health Operations
Members (1) Dr Farzana Rana, HOD Paediatrics
(2) Dr Usama Ameen, Consulting orthopaedic
2. The committee shall submit report by 11th September, 2015.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this case.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this case.