Ready to face any probe, says Sasikala

Chennai

The AIADMK’s former interim general secretary, V.K. Sasikala, on Tuesday countered the findings of the Justice Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry regarding her role in the treatment accorded to former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa during her hospitalisation between September and December 2016.

“I am prepared to face any further probe in this regard,” Ms. Sasikala said in a three-page statement. “No one will hereafter support the mean stand of those who did not have the courage to take on Jayalalithaa politically and are watching the politicisation of her death. People have realised that there are no issues regarding the death of Amma [Jayalalithaa],” she said.

Contrary to what was stated in the report of the commission, she [Ms. Sasikala] had “never interfered” with the medical treatment given to the former Chief Minister. “To provide views on the matter, I did not study medicine. It was left to the medical team to decide on the procedures to be adopted and medicines to be administered [to Jayalalithaa]. My intention was to ensure first class treatment for Amma,” she said, pointing out that she had “never been an obstacle” to taking the former Chief Minister abroad for further treatment.

Explaining the rationale behind choosing to go to Apollo Hospitals, Ms. Sasikala said the hospital was “a very big one in Asia.” Doctors who had received global acclaim were working there. Besides, it was at the hospital that tests regarding the health of Jayalalithaa were done earlier. It was the decision of doctors, including those from AIIMS, that the former Chief Minister did not need an angiogram. “People would not accept what is made out of conjecture,” Ms. Sasikala said.

Referring to the commission’s view that the ties between her and Jayalalithaa had soured since 2012, Ms. Sasikala asked how the commission arrived at such a conclusion, and who had given such information. “There was no way by which Amma, who was no more, would have told the panel,” she observed, terming the view a “lie” and “absurd”.

She also wondered how the commission could “make unnecessary assumptions, exceeding its limits”, and level charges against her.