Patient's Vulnerability Can't Be Used As A Weapon To Sexually Exploit Them: Karnataka High Court Declines Relief To Doctor Accused Of Sexual Harassment

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor seeking to quash an offence registered against him under Section 354-A (Sexual Harassment) on the complaint lodged by a patient.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “A doctor should remember that the patients seek their help when they are in a vulnerable state – when they are sick, when they are needy and when they are uncertain about the needs to be done. The unequal distribution of power in the doctor-patient relationship may give rise to opportunities of sexual exploitation. This vulnerability should not be used as a weapon by the doctors, misusing the trust the patient reposes in the doctor.”

It added “Due to such a position of power and trust between the doctor and a patient, no alleged sexual activity by the doctor on the patient is acceptable. If it happens or it is alleged to have happened, it represents sexual abuse. If any act of the kind emerges even as an allegation, the relationship of trust between the doctor and a patient gets eroded.”

It was stated that the complainant, on account of chest pain, had visited Orbsky Hospital in JP Nagar, where the petitioner (Dr Chethan Kumar S) was the duty doctor. He treated the complainant and suggested she undergo an ECG, X-ray of the chest and informed her to share the details on his WhatsApp. 

It was stated that on seeing the reports, the petitioner directed the complainant to visit his personal clinic/Prasiddhi clinic at about 2.00 p.m. on 21.03.2024.

When the complainant visited the clinic of the petitioner, it was stated that she was alone and the doctor took the complainant into a room, asked her to lay-down and started checking her heart-beat by placing the stethoscope on the breast, directing her to pull up her shirt.

It was alleged that the doctor then started to touch the patient's breast by hand and even kissed the left breast. The complainant stated that she immediately left the clinic and the next day registered a complaint.

The petitioner argued that he was performing his duty as a doctor, and had only placed his stethoscope on the breast of the complainant as he does to every patient, as the complaint was congestion in the chest. It was argued that the allegation that the complainant was directed to remove the shirt and the bra, is false and should not be accepted.

The prosecution opposed the plea stating that the complaint narrates minute details, therefore, it is a matter of investigation for the petitioner to come out clean.

Findings:

The bench referred to the complaint and noted that the WhatsApp chats between the complainant and the doctor are also appended to the petition which would demonstrate that the doctor has called the complainant to his personal clinic. 

Referring to Section 354-A of the IPC (sexual harassment), the court said “Section 354A of IPC has four ingredients viz., physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. The other three ingredients are not relevant for the case at hand. The act of the doctor in directing the complainant to remove her shirt and bra and placing his mouth on the left breast would undoubtedly become the ingredients of Section 354A of IPC qua clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 354A of IPC as it is undoubtedly an unwelcome and explicit overture.”

Then it observed “A doctor by profession has access to the body of the patient. If the access is utilised for the purpose of healing, it is an altogether different circumstance and a divine act. If it is utilised for some other feeling, it would clearly become advances which would attract Section 354A of IPC.”

Following which it held that based on the complaint, an offence under Section 354A IPC was made out and the petitioner cannot play doctor-doctor before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings, as any such acceptance would amount to putting a premium on this doctor's allegation on his patient – the complainant.”

The Court noted that certain guidelines exist for doctors on sexual boundaries, as notified on the website of the Indian Medical Council.

It observed that the guidelines were drawn by the Indian Psychiatric Society Task Force on such boundary guidelines, and they stated that whenever a female patient is being examined by a male practitioner, it should be ensured that it would be done in the presence of a female person, particularly at the time of physical examination.

Accordingly, the court said “The petitioner-doctor has prima facie violated all the above. Therefore, an investigation in the least, should be permitted to be continued.”

Thus, it dismissed the petitioner's plea.

Appearance: Advocate Afroz Pasha for Petitioner.

HCGP Harish Ganapath for R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 261

Case Title: Dr Chethan Kumar S AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4868 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order