Delhi HC: Doctors must verify age before abortion, refuses to quash case against physician
The Delhi High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of illegally terminating the pregnancy of a 16-year-old girl and failing to report the matter to authorities. The judgment, delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on Wednesday, reinforces the legal duty of medical practitioners to verify a patient's age before performing a medical termination of pregnancy (MTP).
The court observed that a doctor cannot rely solely on the oral assertion of a patient's age while carrying out an abortion. Under the law, age must be 'ascertained and recorded' and not merely accepted on an unverified oral representation. This ruling underscores the safeguards embedded in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, which requires written consent from a guardian for a minor's pregnancy to be terminated.
According to the court, a registered medical practitioner performing an invasive procedure that is conditional on the patient's age is not absolved of the duty to seek some documentary proof of age merely because an escort volunteers a figure. The observation came in response to a petition challenging a trial court's order from September 2020, which directed further investigation into whether the doctor knew the girl was a minor at the time of the procedure and consciously failed to report the matter to the police.
As per the prosecution, in July 2019, a co-accused posing as the girl's aunt told hospital authorities that the pregnancy resulted from a relationship with her boyfriend. The escort falsely disclosed the girl's age as 20 years. However, the High Court noted that the petitioner became aware of the minor's age during the termination procedure itself. The FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was registered only 70 days after the termination, allegedly due to the doctor's failure to report it.
Highlighting procedural lapses, the court noted that at the time of admission, no identity proof or residential proof of any kind was obtained by the hospital. Taking these factors into account, the court concluded that the alleged offence against the petitioner was made out from the prosecution records, warranting a trial. Therefore, the High Court refused to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings.
This judgment serves as a significant reminder to medical professionals about their obligations under the MTP Act and POCSO. It clarifies that documentation of age is not a mere formality but a legal requirement designed to protect minors from unlawful procedures. The decision also emphasizes the importance of mandatory reporting in cases involving minors, as delays in registering FIRs can impede timely investigation and justice.
Legal experts view this as a balanced judgment that upholds the rule of law without disregarding the medical practitioner's perspective. It reinforces that while doctors must act in the best interest of their patients, they cannot circumvent statutory safeguards. The case will now proceed in the trial court, where the evidence will be examined in full.
