BUKIT MERTAJAM, Feb 26 — An enforcement officer from the Health Department conceded it has no jurisdiction to investigate a patient when it conducted a spot check on a clinic here, which led to her conviction for having an illegal abortion.

Mohd Nasir Mohamad Noor, 40, told the Sessions Court here that the health department enforcement team may only investigate the private clinic and its staff under Section 39(1) under Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act (Act 586) for restrictions on use of premises.

He revealed this during cross-examination by defence counsel E. Gnasegaran in the case of Nepalese Nirmala Thapa who was charged with having an abortion.

Despite his admission, Mohd Nasir said he lodged a police report after seeing a woman lying on a bed, looking tired and pale during one such raid, saying he suspected a crime had occurred.

When asked what led to his suspicion, Mohd Nasir replied that there were a dilation and curettage set, blood-covered forceps and suction machine commonly used for abortion procedures in the treatment room.

However, he later admitted that the woman could have been in the clinic for other treatments and not specifically for an abortion procedure.

He also told the court that no action was taken against doctor in the clinic, Dr Ng Ek Tiong, despite investigation by the Private Medical Practice Control Unit (UKAPS).

The second witness called in the case, M. Parimala, a trained nurse from UKAPS, also agreed that the check conducted on the clinic was to see if there was a breach in medical practices and regulations under Act 586.

She said Section 39(1) has a restriction against general practitioners in private clinics from conducting abortions.

However, during cross-examination, Parimala admitted that the law in question did not specifically forbid a general practitioner of a private clinic from conducting an abortion.

The third witness, Dr Zuraini Abdullah, assistant director from the unit, confirmed that UKAPS raided the clinic on suspicions that the clinic had committed a breach of regulations under Section 39(1).

She said the premises of a private clinic may only be used for the purpose for which it was licensed, which did not include abortions.

The case before Sessions Court judge M. Vijayalakshmi was adjourned to March 25 and 26.

Earlier at the start of the trial, Gnasegaran told the court that he had submitted a representation to the chief prosecution unit to drop the charges against Nirmala.

Nirmala, 24, was convicted of conducting an act to prevent a child from being born alive without the intention of saving her own life as the mother and sentenced to one year in jail on November 12.

She successfully appealed against the conviction and sentence and, on January 11, the Penang High Court sent it back to the lower courts.

Nirmala is believed to be the first woman in Malaysia to be charged and convicted for abortion.

Abortion is permitted under Section 312 of the Penal Code where there is an exception for a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy if the medical practitioner is of the opinion that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life, physical and mental health of the pregnant woman.