Morale Of Doctors Is The Backbone Of Health Care: Kerala HC Quashes Prosecution Against Doctor For Alleged Refusal To Examine Minor
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal prosecution against a doctor accused of allegedly refusing to examine a minor girl after observing that the morale of doctors is the backbone of healthcare.
The Doctor (Petitioner) was accused under Section 166B of the IPC. The Court noted that in order to attract an offence under Section 166B of the IPC, contravention of Section 357C of the CrPC is necessary., which included cases like acid attacks and sexual assaults. However, the Bench noted that the minor in this case was not a victim of any such offence.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “The petitioner has got a definite case that, she attended the victim produced before her and to substantiate her case, she is relying on several documents kept in the hospital. She states that, it is a false case foisted against her by the 2nd respondent. She produced some documents also to prove her innocense. The morale of doctors is the backbone of health care. But if the allegations against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent are correct, it is very serious.”
Advocate Shyam Padman appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith. T.R represented the Respondents.
The 17-year-old minor who was reported missing was found by the police and brought to the Petitioner for medical examination. According to the police report, the Petitioner allegedly expressed her unwillingness to examine the minor and abused the minor, her mother, and police officers in the presence of other patients. The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner purportedly sent them back without issuing a medical certificate.
The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner contravened Section 357C of the CrPC, which mandates hospitals to provide free and immediate medical treatment to victims of certain offences, thereby attracting liability under Section 166B of the IPC.
The Petitioner argued that the allegations were not true and that she had attended to the minor while managing other emergencies.
The High Court noted, “Admittedly, the victim produced by the Police before the petitioner herein is not a victim of any offence covered under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 376E of IPC.”
Therefore, the Court held, “To attract an offence under Section 166B IPC, contravention of Section 357C of the Criminal Procedure Code is necessary. Section 357C Cr.P.C. says that the hospital, public or private etc., should provide first aid or medical treatment, free of cost to victims of any offence covered under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code.”
The State Police Chief was directed by the Court to conduct an inquiry into the Petitioner’s counter-allegations against the complainant police officer after observing, “Similarly, the police officer’s badge is known as a symbol of trust, honour, and courage. To prove the same, an enquiry by a competent officer against the 2nd respondent based on the allegation of the petitioner is also necessary.”
Consequently, the Court held, “All further proceedings against the petitioner on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode is quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Dr. Beena Bahuleyan v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:87679)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Shyam Padman, C.M.Andrews, Anitya Annie Mathew, Boby M.Sekhar, Laya Mary Joseph, P.T.Mohankumar, Neethu Ravikumar, Nabil Khader and Revathy P. Manoharan
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith. T.R