Supreme Court condemns doctor's inaction in treating 4-year-old rape victim
The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticised a private hospital and its doctor for allegedly refusing emergency treatment to a four-year-old girl who had been raped and later died from her injuries in Ghaziabad. The court described their conduct as lacking compassion and professionalism.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, questioned the doctor's medical ethics and warned that imposing a monetary penalty would have a chilling effect on medical practice. The court stated that a doctor who neglects a patient in such critical circumstances does not deserve the title of 'doctor'.
During the hearing, the bench asked the hospital's counsel: 'If you had any sensitivity, you would have accompanied the child to another hospital if you lacked the facilities. Did you ignore her because she was poor or could not afford your fee?' The court emphasised that any doctor faced with such a situation must ensure the child receives immediate medical assistance.
The court's remarks came as it continued hearing a case related to the alleged rape and murder of the four-year-old in Ghaziabad. The matter is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday.
In a previous hearing, the court had strongly criticised the Ghaziabad Police for what it termed as complete indifference and insensitivity in the initial investigation. The court pointed out delays in registering the FIR, failure to initially invoke rape and POCSO offences despite injuries recorded in the post-mortem report, and several other investigative and medical lapses.
The court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and the Station House Officer of Nandgram Police Station to personally appear before it to explain the sequence of events. The court noted that the FIR was registered only a day after the incident, even though the victim was a four-year-old child. Referring to the post-mortem report, the bench observed that it recorded injuries to the child's private parts suggesting assault with a blunt object.
Despite these findings, the police initially investigated the matter only as a case of murder, prompting the court to remark that 'no proper inquiry has been conducted so far' and that there appeared to be a 'hush-hush approach' surrounding the incident. The court also questioned why the police had initially invoked only offences relating to murder and destruction of evidence, despite apparent indicators of sexual assault.
