|
The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on a private hospital and its doctor for allegedly refusing to provide emergency treatment to a four-year-old rape victim, who later succumbed to her injuries in a rape and murder case in Ghaziabad.
Calling their conduct merciless, ruthless and insensitive, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana questioned the doctor's medical ethics and warned the hospital that if it were to impose a monetary penalty for its conduct, it would have a chilling effect. "You have no business of writing 'doctor' with your name if you don't perform your duty. If you had sensitivity, you would have gone with the child to another hospital if you didn't have the facility. You ignored because she was poor? Couldn't afford your fee?" the Court said to the counsel representing the hospital. The Court added that any doctor faced with such a situation was expected to ensure the child received immediate medical assistance. "A child victim of such a heinous crime is brought before you and you are so merciless you did not provide medical care. If you had any empathy you would have taken her to the hospital yourself", the CJI remarked. The CJI then cautioned the hospital about the possible consequences of its conduct. "If we impose penalty it will have chilling effect You have acted in the most ruthless manner", the Court said. The Court's remarks came as it continued hearing the case arising out of the alleged rape and murder of the four-year-old child in Ghaziabad. The Court has indicated that it will take up the matter next week, preferably on Tuesday. At the previous hearing, the Court had strongly criticised the Ghaziabad Police over what it termed complete indifference and insensitivity in the initial investigation, pointing to 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. Flagging glaring lapses in the investigation, the Court had directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and the SHO of Nandgram Police Station to remain personally present before it to explain the sequence of events. The Court had 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 had during earlier hearing also questioned why the police had initially invoked only offences relating to murder and destruction of evidence. It observed that despite the apparent indicators of sexual assault, no offences under the POCSO Act or the rape provisions were registered at the outset. The Court noted that rape charges were added only subsequently, after the seriousness of the offence came to be realised. Apart from the investigation, the Court had also scrutinised the medical and forensic record. It observed that the inquest (panchnama) failed to mention whether the child was wearing any clothes when she was found, despite recording that her private parts were bleeding. The Court further found deficiencies in the post-mortem examination, observing that the doctor conducting the autopsy had failed to adequately address crucial aspects necessary for a proper investigation into allegations of sexual assault. Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for the victim's father, had also informed the Court that the family was allegedly subjected to intimidation after the incident. Recording these submissions, the Bench noted allegations that the petitioner's family members were wrongfully confined, assaulted and asked to remain silent about the incident, leading them to lose faith in the local police machinery. The Court was further informed that before reaching a government hospital, the child was allegedly denied admission and emergency treatment by two private hospitals despite being in a critical condition. It is this aspect of the case that came under sharp focus during today's hearing, when the Supreme Court questioned the conduct of one of the doctors and the private hospital over the alleged refusal to provide immediate medical assistance during the child's golden hour. (ANI)
|
