"Doctors Are Backbone Of Healthcare, Police Officer's Badge Is Symbol Of Trust": Kerala HC On Cross-Allegations By Medical Officer & Circle Inspector
Tellmy Jolly
29 Nov 2024 1:01 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor under Section 166B of the IPC, who was accused of showing unwillingness to examine the victim in a child missing case and failing to issue a medical certificate, on finding that the ingredients of the said offence were not made out.
The Court however, expressed that enquiry has to be conducted against the doctor and opined that departmental action must be taken, if necessary.
As per Section 166B of the IPC, persons in charge of a hospital who do not provide treatment to victims and act contrary to Section 357C of the CrPC would be liable for imprisonment of up to one year and a fine. Section 357 CrPC states that hospitals must provide first aid or medical treatment free of cost to victims of acid attack and rape.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the victim was admittedly not a victim of offences like acid attack or rape-related offences and therefore offence under Section 166B cannot be attracted.
The Court, however, stated that the allegations in the complaint against the doctor were serious and had to be forwarded to the Director of Health Service for an enquiry and for taking action if required as per law.
“if the allegation against the petitioner is correct, at least departmental action is necessary against her. This Court is aware that the Doctors community is working hard and generally, there is no allegation against them. But, after reading complaint and while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner based on a technical ground, this Court cannot stop there. Without expressing any opinion on the contents of complaint, I am of the opinion that, matter is to be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with the law…. The morale of doctors is the backbone of health care. But if the allegations against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent (police officer) are correct, it is very serious.”
As per the facts, the victim aged 17 years who was missing for over a month was found by the police and was taken home. The police had registered FIR for child missing case based on the victim's mother's complaint.
It was alleged that the doctor who was the Senior Medical Officer showed unwillingness to examine the victim also abused and insulted the victim when she was brought for medical examination by the police. It is alleged that the police were constrained to produce the victim before the Magistrate without medical certificate due to this.
On the other hand, the doctor who was the Senior Medical Officer submitted that police has made false case against her. It was argued that she was attending labour room duty on the day of the alleged incident and had to rush to the operation theatre for an emergency procedure. She submitted that the victim and the police did had left without collecting the medical certificate prepared by her. It is submitted that no offence under Section 166B of the IPC would be attracted.
On analysing Section 166B of the IPC and Section 357 of the CrPC, the Court observed prosecution against the doctor under Section 166B of the IPC was not necessary.
“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 victim produced is not a victim of an offence under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 376E of IPC, as on the time when she is produced. In such circumstances, the continuation of prosecution against the petitioner is not necessary.”
The Court further stated that enquiry must also be conducted against the police to find out whether they have fabricated a false case against the doctor, as she has alleged.
“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. The State Police Chief will depute a competent officer to enquire about the allegation against the 2nd respondent by the petitioner, after giving him sufficient opportunity of hearing.”
As such, the proceedings against the doctor under Section 166B of the IPC were quashed.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Shyam Padman, C.M.Andrews, Anitya Annie Mathew, Boby M.Sekhar, Laya Mary Joseph, P.T.Mohankumar, Neethu Ravikumar, Nabil Khader, Revathy P. Manoharan
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith T R
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 4723 OF 2018
Case Title: Dr.Beena Bahuleyan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
