Berhampur: In a dramatic development, former Berhampur MLA Bikram Panda, the prime accused in the lawyer Pitabas Panda murder case, has been hospitalised once again after he complained of severe chest pain.
A day after being shifted back to Brahmapur Jail amid tight security, Bikram Panda was again admitted to MKCG Medical College and Hospital on Monday.
Admitted for ill health and kept under medical supervision for five days, Bikram was discharged and sent back to jail on Monday without undergoing the much-anticipated surgery. However, he was readmitted to the same hospital at around 9 pm on February 17, triggering confusion.
Sources said Panda was rushed to hospital in Berhampur after he complained of acute chest pain and intolerable cramp in his stomach. He was escorted to the hospital amid tight security. After registration, a team of doctors examined Panda’s health condition and advised a few tests, essential for treatment.
Earlier, the former legislator was admitted to the hospital on February 8 after complaining of health issues, including piles, tooth pain, high blood pressure, and abdominal discomfort while in Berhampur Jail, where he is lodged since his arrest on October 22, 2025. A team of doctors, including a six-member panel, evaluated his condition and recommended surgery for gall bladder stones. However, the procedure did not take place.
However, the abrupt discharge and equally sudden readmission have cast a shadow over the handling of the accused’s medical condition. The matter escalated further when his counsel, Dipak Patnaik, moved a review petition before the court on February 17, seeking clarity and intervention regarding the uncertainties surrounding Bikram’s treatment.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the fluctuating medical decisions, the court reportedly took note of the inconsistencies. The defence argued that the accused was willing to undergo surgery, yet no operation was performed during his initial hospitalization.
Earlier, Dr Durga Satpathy, Superintendent of MKCG and head of the seven-member medical team, had stated that Bikram would require thorough pre-operative evaluation, including anaesthesia clearance and cardiology assessments, before any surgical intervention. The medical authorities also maintained that the patient’s formal consent was mandatory prior to proceeding with the operation.
In light of the prevailing ambiguity, the court directed defence lawyer Dipak Patnaik to personally meet Bikram Panda and ascertain his consent for surgery. If the accused agrees, the consent must be formally submitted before the court to facilitate further medical action.
As legal scrutiny tightens and public attention sharpens, the episode has not only added another layer of intrigue to the high-profile murder case but has also spotlighted the delicate intersection of medical ethics, custodial rights, and judicial oversight.
