Baby Sunaina died on the sixth day in
the care of London Borough of Redbridge social services and Police protection. Yet her body was
tampered with by unlawful organ removal. The same local authority made application to destroy the body of baby
Sunaina Chaudhari, six years later, to prevent the family carrying out independent investigations on the body. The family
were forced to expatriate the body to India
where it remains to date, 2009
European Convention on Human Rights
application under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14
A. The family allege that they have been unlawfully
restrained by doctors and NHS Hospital Trusts in a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in the injunctions
of July 2002, July 2003 and the Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order dated 06 April 2004 under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14.
B. Family allege ineffective investigation by the Coroner on 11 September 2001, under
Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and seek a remedy for a new Inquest on the grounds of fresh evidence dated
15 August 2004.
C. This is an urgent request to the European Court of Human Rights for a request for the third
post-mortem to be conducted in India as
soon as possible. The body was expatriated on 19 March 2007 to Delhi, India after London Borough of Redbridge took legal
action to destroy the body under the Diseases Act despite family allegations of ineffective investigation and after their
requests for proper investigations were denied and refused.
D. Neelu Chaudhari hereby applies to declare this
disciplinary action against her as a qualified pharmacist and witness, a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights
as victimisation, discrimination, denial of justice, inhuman degrading treatment, breaching right to her family life, breaching
right to life of baby Sunaina.
E. The family hereby apply that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
the General Medical Council, the Nursing & Midwifery Council, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence and the
Police failed in their public function for the protection of the public, putting the lives of the public at risk and subjecting
baby Sunaina and her family to discrimination, denial or justice, inhuman degrading treatment, breaching right to her family
life, breaching right to life of baby Sunaina. The police failed to protect Sunaina despite family raising concerns
that her life was at risk. Sunaina died in hospital on the sixth day of being put into the care of Social Services and
on the sixth day under Police protection.
During an antenatal scan at 21 weeks pregnancy,
Sadhana Chaudhari, was advised termination, on the grounds that the foetus may not survive the pregnancy, or the birth or
an operation to correct a left Diaphragmatic Hernia, whereby her stomach had slipped through the diaphragm and was growing
in the chest area next to the left lung, see E000 birth.jpg.
Sunaina was born on 25 May 2000, full term,
by normal delivery, at King George Hospital, Ilford, Essex, and was put on a ventilator. Doctors did not make arrangements
for the operation on the grounds that she would die soon after birth or on grounds that she would not survive the operation.
An assessment by cardiologist at one day age found the heart was strong enough to withstand surgery, E000 cardiology.jpg
underwent a successful repair of the hernia at 1 week age at Great Ormond Street Hospital for sick children, London, whereby
the stomach was pulled back into the abdomen. She came off the ventilator and was transferred back to King George Hospital
after at two weeks old.
A decision was made on 09 June 2000 that it was not in Sunaina’s interests to undergo
further surgery or resuscitation see E000 DNR on 090600.jpg
On 30 June 2000, another decision was made that
it was not in Sunaina’s interests to undergo further surgery or resuscitation. See E000 DNR on 300600a.jpg, E000
DNR on 300600ba.jpg, E000 DNR on 300600c.jpg
The family believe that doctors prime considerations for
advising termination were to save costs of the intensive care, surgery and hospitalisation.
Both the left lung
and stomach were premature due to the stomach having grown in the chest during pregnancy. Sunaina was therefore given
continuous feeding and low flow oxygen whilst she recovered.
Sunaina was said by doctors to have made
a remarkable recovery and was discharged home at 2 months of age on 31 July 2000, see E000 discharge.jpg .
mother was trained to monitor her oxygen levels and adjust the oxygen supply according to her baby’s needs. Sunaina’s
oxygen requirements were much reduced, varying between 0.25L/min to 1.25L/min.
During an out-patient clinic appointment
on 07 September 2000, see E001, the consultant stated she was “doing very well” since her discharge home, was
following and fixing, cooing etc. and apart from an eye infection, the rest of her examination was “normal”.
He asked to see her again after 4 months. Ranitidine, previously prescribed as 3mg three times daily, was not amongst
the prescribed medication in the letter dated 16 September 2000, sent to the family General Practitioner Dr Suri, see E001.
On 26 September 2000, Dr Suri, prescribed for 4 month old baby Sunaina, an overdose of ranitidine, 150mg
to be given twice daily, an adult dose. Ranitidine is licensed for reducing acid in children above the age of 2 years.
It is not licensed in children under two years of age and not recommended for long term use.
on duty at Tesco pharmacy, Barkingside, dispensed the overdose at 8.29hrs, the same day. Over the next four days, baby
Sunaina’s oxygen requirements increased from 0.125L/min to over 2L/min, the maximum limit for the home oxygen equipment.
She was admitted to King George
Hospital on 01 October 2000 with difficulty in breathing. Her blood
oxygen level was 51%, see E002.
The hospital doctors failed to take sufficient medication history to detect the
overdose or to monitor levels of ranitidine on admission. Instead, hospital doctors wrongly prescribed further overdoses
of ranitidine in hospital, 30mg three times daily for a further four days. The manufacturers do not take responsibility
when it is prescribed for children under 2 years old. In those cases, the responsibility falls on the prescribing doctor
in case of overdose. Doctors are therefore advised vigilance in unlicensed use.
On 04 October 2000, the
Guys Poisons Unit was misinformed by Dr Gavel that baby Sunaina had received only one single ten times overdose of ranitidine
some 9 hours earlier, in error, and that she was well. The Poisons Unit advised the hospital to monitor the child’s
heart and breathing. In fact she had received a total of several hundred times overdoses over an eight day period which
had accumulated in her body. And she was highly reliant on CPAP oxygen as a result.
Despite the advice, the child
was not transferred to an acute hospital with proper monitoring facilities for heart and breathing. She was left in
a cubicle on an ordinary ward, with a low level of nursing care. Sadhana was living in the cubicle and providing acute
nursing care 24 hours a day. Ranitidine was not stopped to allow the overdose to leave Sunaina’s body. Blood
levels of ranitidine were not taken or monitored. There was no proper equipment for proper monitoring or CPAP oxygen (Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure, oxygen under pressure). The family allege that the failure of the hospital to transfer baby
to an acute hospital was suspicious.
Sadhana raised the alarm with nurses on several occasions that baby needed
CPAP but was told that only a doctor could authorise it and that there was no doctor available.
By 05.41hrs on
05 October 2000, the child’s blood oxygen level fell to 57.5%, and by 06.25hrs it fell further to 37.4% (normal 99-100%).
An x-ray showed baby to have a “large heart” E003.
The next morning, baby was found to be blue.
A formal complaint was filed with the Chief Executive about the care being provided stating that if Sadhana had not been with
her baby to raise the alarm her baby would have died.
The family asked for a transfer to another hospital
but this request was frustrated. Baby was continued with ranitidine for another three weeks without monitoring levels
and without a break to allow the ranitidine overdose to leave the body. Sunaina continued to rely on CPAP oxygen for
most of the admission.
On 20 October 2000, a meeting was held by two hospital consultants, a hospital doctor
and the hospital ward manager. A note was put in Sunaina’s medical file, E004
intensivists at GOS (Great Ormond Street)
-Obtain restriction order to exclude mother, father & aunt from the ward. Restrict access to 4 hours per day supervised
by nursing staff
-Meeting with parents, Chief Executive, Carmel, Legal Team
-Contact Social Worker Maria Murphy to initiate
court proceedings asap
-Inform medical & nursing staff on ward over weekend
-Arrange press release from press officer
consultants for GOS to attend Monday 23/10/00 to give an opinion on Sunaina’s condition
-Aim for Judicial review
re plans for DNR
The hospital doctors abused the process of law to involve London Borough of Redbridge social
workers, who had n o previous dealings with the baby or the family, to put Sunaina into the care of the state, whilst she
was restrained and detained in hospital against her parents wishes, to obtain an emergency protection order whilst the baby
was in danger from the doctors, to exclude the family from hospital and to prevent the baby from leaving the hospital or being
with her family at home. This was inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture of the baby and family.
entry was made in the medical notes at 15.00hrs on 20 October 2000,
“Following a meeting with the consultants at
GOS, it was agreed that over the weekend the CPAP should be weaned off and they will come and assess the baby on Monday.”
decision at 15.00hrs on 20 October 2000 for the CPAP to be weaned off after a decision was made for “Do Not Resuscitate”
confirms that the Emergency Protection Order was taken out by the doctors for the doctors to assume the power of the High
Court to implement the “allow to die” decision in the parents absence and against their wishes.
18.00hrs, on 20 October 2000, Sunaina’s aunt, Neelu Chaudhari, a pharmacist, asked the Consultant, “Are you trying
to kill this baby?”. The Consultant did not answer, smiled, lowered his head and left the cubicle.
18.49, unknown to the family, a fax was obtained by King George Hospital from five intensivists of Great Ormond Street Hospital
recommending palliative care, withholding and withdrawing treatment and “Do Not Resuscitate” against the wishes
of the parents. The letter recommended that it was in Sunaina’s best interests be allowed to die and doctors seek
Judicial review but this advice was not followed.
Doctors and social workers obtained an Emergency Protection
Order against the parents and aunt, preventing them from being with Sunaina in hospital, preventing them visiting Sunaina
in hospital, preventing Sunaina leaving hospital, preventing Sunaina going home. The EPO was used unlawfully to deny
visits by all other family members who were not named on the EPO, to see Sunaina in hospital in the last six days of her life,
including Sunaina’s three cousins, two grandparents and another aunt.
An entry in Sunaina’s medical
file at 24.55hrs on 21/10/00
“Discussion with Teresa Walsh Jones, Head of Social Work Child Protection Team.
Emergency child protection order to be served, agreed restricted visiting time to be between hours of 10-12.00 hours and 18.00
to 20.00 hours
In the event of Sunaina’s condition deteriorating at any time Paul McCarthy, principle officer
for social work services to be contacted”
Ranitidine was continued without monitoring levels for overdose
until 24 October 2000.
A fax dated 20 October 2000 from five intensivists from Great Ormond Street
Hospital, recommending that it was in Sunaina’s best interests
to be allowed to die in the parent’s absence and against their wishes recommended an application to the High Court for
judicial review. But no application was made to the High Court. Instead, an application was made in the Family Proceedings
court to put Sunaina in the care of Social Services, under Police protection whilst she continued to be administered ranitidine
drug overdoses and deprived of oxygen. Family members were to be arrested if they tried to visit Sunaina in hospital:-
entry on 01.15hrs on 21/10/00 confirms that Sadhana was removed from her baby’s cubicle by Police officers, Child protection
officer and social worker early on a Saturday:-
“Emergency Protection Order served on Mrs Chaudhari in
the presence of two Police Officers by Teresa Walsh Jones and Maria Murphy. Mrs Chaudhari spoken to at length by Teresa
Walsh Jones. Attempts by Social Services to get transport for Mrs Chaudhari to go home from family members was unsuccessful.
Chaudhari’s property packed by staff and given to Teresa.
1) Hourly record
of observations of Sunaina whilst on CPAP
2) Any deterioration in Sunaina’s condition
McCarthy must be contacted on previous number.
If any relatives or visitors attend the hospital premises, once asked to
leave, should they refuse, Police must be called.
On 21 October 2000, Neelu Chaudhari reported to Police that
doctors had taken out the ex-parte protection order to deny family visits to hospital and to isolate Sunaina in hospital to
English law under the Children’s Act at the time prevented the family from appealing to the Emergency
Protection Order until after a period of several days.
On 24 October 2000, parents met with social workers and
warned them that the ex-parte emergency protection order had been taken out to deny family protection to enable the doctors
to isolate Sunaina in hospital to kill her.
On 25 October 2000, a Care Plan was drawn by a hospital consultant
recommending that baby was to go home on low flow oxygen and she was to be reviewed in clinic in 4 weeks time. E009
26 October 2000, the family was in court to overturn the protection Order. At 11.05hrs they were informed in court
by a consultant “baby died this morning”.
Family immediately reported to Police that baby had been
murdered by hospital doctors.
The family found massive evidence of an unnatural death when they tried
to resuscitate Sunaina in the cubicle. Baby was found with seven needle marks, including one in the neck, which was
omitted from both post-mortems. Baby was found with a large volume of milk in her lungs, mouth and nose, which gurgled
out after mouth to mouth resuscitation. There was a large wound on baby’s right arm.
suspicious that the consultant at court was seen making several calls to Dr Solebo at the hospital, instructing him to abandon
his duties on another ward, to enter Sunaina’s cubicle to puncture her repeatedly with needles. Dr Solebo stated
that he received calls from the counsultant in court. He stated that Sunaina died suddenly from a cardiac arrest whilst
he was puncturing her with needles. This is contrary to the natural death finding of the Inquest.
and 26 October 2000, within minutes and hours of her sudden death, baby Sunaina was suspiciously administered potassium chloride
on four occasions without monitoring potassium levels and without reviewing the indication. Potassium is given as last
lethal injection in death row. Its use was suspicious since the doctors had implemented withdrawal and withholding of
oxygen and water.
Despite the family’s objections to the Coroner against Great Ormond Street hospital conducting the post-mortem, she instructed its pathologist
to conduct the post-mortem on 30 October 2000 at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
The pathologist had earlier refused to do the post-mortem stating “What do you expect with Edwards?” His
post-mortem omitted chromosome analysis and vitreous test for ranitidine and potassium levels at the time of death.
He failed to consider the drug overdoses stating that he did not have the complete medical file.
On 27 December
2000, family submitted details of the drug overdoses in a draft chronology. On 27 December 2000, Police paediatrician
Professor Weindling stated that the standard of care given to baby Sunaina was of an exceptionally high standard.
Police undertook to conduct a second post-mortem and promised the family it would include chromosome analysis, vitreous test
for ranitidine and potassium levels, photographs and video recording and blood samples, but later stated after the second
post-mortem on 31 January 2001 that the second pathologist did not feel they were necessary. The family suspect that
the body was not even opened. The second pathologist later stated that he was not given the complete medical file for
the last 9 days of Sunaina’s life. The lack of the complete file did not explain why the pathologists did not
consider the ranitidine drug overdoses given to baby Sunaina since 26 September 2000 since this fact had been established
by 04 October 2000.
During April and May 2001, the family sought the medical opinion of two medical doctors of
the nhsexpose.com, Dr Rita Pal and Dr Rani Pal. They researched the medical files and responded in several emails, see
On 23 July 2001, the family made allegations against several doctors to the General Medical Council but
no doctor has been subjected to disciplinary action.
The Coroner stated in a letter that the body was stored
at King George Hospital. She later wrote stating that she had been misinformed, and that it was
kept at her secure mortuary. The family later discovered from Great Ormond Street Hospital,
that it had been kept at King George
The Police failed to investigate the family’s
criminal allegations against doctors independent of the Coroner’s Inquest on 11 September 2001. Professor Weindling
gave oral evidence at the Inquest stating that the care provided to Sunaina was of a high standard.
refused to allow pharmacist aunt of baby Sunaina to come as witness at the Inquest.
The Coroner refused
the family legal representation.
The Coroner failed to investigate the evidence of unlawful organ removal
including eyeballs tongue and brain, in particular the evidence of two pathologists which suggested that the organs were removed
prior to the first post-mortem.
The jury was misinformed that there was no way of determining potassium
levels after death. The eye jelly can show the levels of drugs in the body, including potassium, at the time of death
for upto 20 years, (pathologist Professor Michael Baden, USA)
The Coroner ordered the post-mortem to be conducted on frozen
tissue, confirming that she was aware that the body had been tampered with by the removal of organs prior to the post-mortem.
Both pathologists concealed the unlawful removal of organs.
There is a known established culture of unlawful
removal of organs from patients who are alive and dead for the purposes of research and for sale to the pharmaceutical industry
in the UK. This scandal was in the
national media on 30 January 2001. The Great Ormond
Street Hospital was found to be fifth worst
in the UK for unlawful removal and retention
of human organs. In Sunaina’s case, the removal of organs prevented the criminal allegations against doctors to
be investigated and the cause of death to be determined, see E011a.jpg, E011b.jpg, E011c.jpg, E011d.jpg, E011e.jpg,
The family also allege that the Coroner failed to ensure that the pathologists carried
out chromosome analysis with photographs and karyotyping which would rule out Trisomy 18. The family allege that
vitreous test on the eye jelly for ranitidine and potassium chloride levels was not done because the eyeballs were not there.
The Coroner and Police dodged the evidence of unlawful organ removal, including missing eyeballs, see E011
family was unsuccessful in a High Court application on 10 September 2001 for a change of Coroner. The Coroner
gave a judicial undertaking in the High Court to let the jury be a judge of fact but at the Inquest on 11 September 2001,
forbade the jury to find a verdict of an unlawful killing. The evidence of drug overdoses, repeated needle puncturing,
milk in lungs, wound on arm, isolation, Emergency Protection Order was not investigated thoroughly or rigorously.
The Coroner then substituted her own verdict, “Multiple Congenital Abnormalities including Edwards Syndrome” for
that of the jury “Little Baby girl with Edwards Syndrome before birth”.
By July 2002, the family
collected 12,000 signatures from members of the public calling for a new investigation into the death.
2002, the Barking Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust of the King
George Hospital sought an injunction
under Protection from Harassment law to prevent family demonstrations but this was refused in the Romford County Court.
On 11 December 2002, the family complained to the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain against the Tesco pharmacist
and the King George
Hospital pharmacist, responsible for the ranitidine overdoses over a
4 week period, see E012.
In October 2002, the five intensivists who issued the fax dated 20 October 2000 and
the pathologist of the Great Ormond
Street Hospital for children
NHS Trust obtained an ex-parte injunction in the High Court to prevent family demonstrations and to shut down some websites
with costs of several thousand pounds in compensation. The family signed a Consent Order under the duress of court
On 24 March 2004, Neelu Chaudhari, a pharmacist, aunt of baby Sunaina, compiled an Expert
Report with evidence of ranitidine and potassium chloride drug overdoses and gave copies to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
of Great Britain, the General Medical Council and the Police. The Police sent a copy to Professor Weindling, E014.
On 06 April 2004, the Consent Order was turned into a Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order by the High Court,
On 09 August 2004, a communication took place between the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
the General Medical Council and the Police, sharing concerns about the ranitidine overdoses. The General Medical Council
enquired about the “Fitness to Practice” history of Neelu Chaudhari, pharmacist, aunt of baby Sunaina. A
note was placed on the computer records held by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on Neelu Chaudhari to the
effect that the Fitness to Practice section were to be informed when Neelu Chaudhari resumed full membership after a period
of illness, see E016
On 15 August 2004, after Professor Weindling was confronted with the report by Neelu Chaudhari,
he reversed his opinion stating that “mistakes had been made by doctors, pharmacists and nurses”, but adding that
these did not harm her see E017.
Neelu Chaudhari resumed full membership as a pharmacist in January 2006.
15 February 2007 the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain abandoned
the complaint against the (White) Tesco pharmacist and the White
King George Hospital
Pharmacist on the grounds that they could not ascertain their identity. However, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain commenced disciplinary proceedings against Neelu Chaudhari claiming that by the appearance of her name on the
Emergency Protection Order, the injunctions by the two NHS Trusts, the Cost Order ,the Consent Order and the Permanent Mandatory
Restraining Order, she had brought the profession into disrepute amounting to serious professional misconduct.
on 15 February 2007, the London Borough of Redbridge commenced
legal proceedings to destroy the body of baby Sunaina in 28 days. The family had been denied access to the body by the
Coroner and were not aware of the location of the body for several years. The family managed to locate the body in March
2007 and expatriated the body to India
for a third post-mortem. The Indian High Court and Supreme Court require a request from the UK
court or authority confirming that the results of the post-mortem will form part of an ongoing investigation in the UK. UK
police and courts have refused to give this request.
On January 2008, Neelu Chaudhari again reported to UK Police that Sunaina had been murdered by doctors.
In their report dated 26 May 2008, the Police stated that they had insufficient evidence to conduct an investigation into
the family’s allegations. They refused to give a request to Indian authorities to conduct a third post-mortem
on her body.
On May 2008, Sadhana commenced proceedings against the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain alleging that it failed to effectively investigate
the pharmacists responsible for the drug overdoses and alleging discrimination and victimisation against her, her baby and
her sister. This was refused on paper and at an oral hearing. A permission to appeal was refused at an oral hearing
on 12 December 2008 on grounds of “no merit”.
On 18-22 August 2008, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
of Great Britain listed an oral hearing
for the Inquiry against Neelu Chaudhari. Neelu requested the copy of the investigation into the drug overdoses
but this was refused by her professional body. The Chairman sitting alone decided to hear her application for
withdrawal of her inquiry at an oral hearing to be conducted in private. She made an application in the High Court that
it was contrary to the Statutory Instrument 1978/20 for the Chairman, sitting alone to determine whether an oral hearing could
be heard in private, since that was for the committee to decide. Despite this, the court awarded the sum of £2,500 in
court costs to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
on 29 October 2008. In actual fact, the committee later decided on 07 February 2009 that the Chairman would sit in private
and make a decision on paper. The costs of £2,500 are a breach of the Human Rights of the victim family.
29 August 2008, Neelu Chaudhari made an interim application for a new Inquest, to overturn the restraining order and for a
stay of proceedings against her. Only the application to overturn the restraining order was allowed and she was advised
to apply to the Queens Bench division for a new Inquest.
On 08 September 2008,
a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Comission found that the Police had not failed in its investigation in any
Complaints were made to the Commission for Health Care Regulatory Excellence against the professional bodies,
but they stated they could not assist.
The Minister of Asia, Lord Malloch Brown failed to assist, advising the
family in September 2008 to seek remedy in the UK
A permission to appeal for a new Inquest on grounds of fresh evidence was refused at an oral hearing
on 09 December 2008 on grounds of “no merit”.
Article 1 . Obligation to respect human rights
The Human rights of the victim family have been breached by false allegations
against the family, by British public officials and authorities, to prevent it from seeking truth and justice, and to punish
it for doing so. The obligation of British public officials and authorities to respect the Human Rights of the Asian
family and the British public at large is absent.
Article 2 . Right to life
The Human Right of Asian baby
Sunaina Chaudhari to her life has been breached. Concealment of the tampering of the body by unlawful organ removal
despite criminal allegations having been made to Police constitutes criminal cover-up by British public officials and public
authorities in this case, including Coroner.
Article 3 . Prohibition of torture
Baby Sunaina was tortured
by being isolated in hospital from her parents and family whilst she was given drug overdoses, denied oxygen and water, withdrawing
and withholding treatment and given an unlawful “Do Not Resuscitate” instruction without a court order and against
her parent’s wishes. She was also put into the care of Social services whilst she was isolated in hospital.
5 . Right to liberty and security
The Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order against the family and anyone else who is aware
of it is a breach of Article 5 since it denies justice, access to justice and violates the family’s right to liberty
Article 6 . Right to a fair trial
The Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order against the family
and anyone else who is aware of it is a breach of Article 6 since it denies justice, access to justice
7 . No punishment without law
The Permanent Mandatory Restraining Order against the family and anyone else who is aware
of it is a breach of Article 7 since it denies justice, access to justice. The family is being persecuted for seeking
justice and truth
Article 8 . Right to respect for private and family life
The actions of the British doctors,
NHS Trust, Police, coroner, pathologists, specialists at Great
Ormond Street Hospital,
have violated the right to respect for private and family life of baby Sunaina and her family
Article 10 . Freedom
The family’s right to to seek justice has been violated
Article 11 . Freedom of assembly
The family’s right to demonstrate has been violated
Article 13 . Right to an effective
The family has been persecuted and punished for seeking an effective remedy
Article 14 . Prohibition
The family has been victimised and discriminated against for seeking justice