Police Officer Manhandles Doctor Alleging Delay In His Mother's Treatment: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail

Nevertheless, Justice K. Haripal emphasized that "it is quite unfortunate that in spite of attending the duties in most diligent manner, they (doctors) have to suffer such indignation which go to the extent of suffering physical and verbal assault."

The de facto complainant Dr. Rahul Mathew is a Junior Consultant in a Mavelikara Government Hospital. He was on night duty on 13^th May 2021 when the applicant's mother was brought in with severe breathing complications.

As per the FIS filed by the Doctor, when they came to know that she was Covid positive, she was immediately taken to Triage, which is an earmarked portion of the hospital attending Covid positive patients.

The doctor claims to have rushed to the place, not even wearing a PPE kit considering the urgency of the matter. But by the time he attended the patient, she was no more. The doctor stated in his statement that the patient had died due to Covid complications, and due to delay in bringing her to the hospital despite her oxygen level being low.

However, alleging that there was delay in treatment, the applicant abused him and tried to manhandle him. Later on, the doctor contends that the applicant entered his room, abused him, caught hold of his neck and slapped him.

Sr. Adv P. Vijaya Bhanu appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he is a Civil Police Officer on probation in Kerala Police, working on deputation in Kochi Metro.

In the bail application, it was alleged that his mother died due to lack of prompt medical attention. When he expressed his grief claiming that prompt medical attention would have saved his mother, the defacto complainant allegedly taunted him and asked him to file a case.

The application states that this was followed by a verbal altercation but no scuffle. However, they engaged in a tussle later on when the doctor purportedly taunted the applicant once again, but no injuries were caused as alleged.

The applicant submitted that his conduct was only due to the sudden shock caused by the death of his mother. Moreover, his counsel argued that their custodial interrogation was not necessary for the case.

The Public Prosecutor had opposed the application, stating that "medical officers, in spite of their diligent and devoted discharge of duty during the period of pandemic are at the receiving end. These kinds of incidents are on the rise and therefore, applicants do not deserve any sympathetic consideration."

The Single Bench denounced the act of the applicant, and affirmed that even if they had a case that there was negligence on the part of the medical officer and hospital staff, that cannot be addressed by showing muscle power and manhandling the doctor in charge.

Additionally, it was highlighted that the applicant being a part of the police department, a uniformed force, was expected to show utmost discipline. But on the contrary, he took law into his hands and thrashed a medical officer in his room.

Justice K Haripal also made a significant observation while deciding the matter:

"We cannot forget the sacrifices and devotion to the duty exhibited by the medical officers and health staff especially during the trying times when the pandemic condition was at its peak. The worsening situation could be bridled in our State only because of the devoted discharge of duties in a most religious manner by the medical staff."

The Court also agreed with the Public Prosecutor and declared that laymen who do not understand the technicalities of the situation might have gotten carried away on misinformation and misconceptions. The pressure of work in a Government hospital is immense and it is quite unfortunate that in spite of attending duties most diligently, the medical staff have to suffer such indignation which goes to the extent of suffering physical and verbal assault.

However, it was pointed out that although the applicant's actions cannot be justified, the incident had happened in an emotionally charged stage. The Court also observed that these are isolated incidents, which cannot be generalized.

Moreover, it was reported that the applicant was suspended from duty on reporting the incident. Hence, while allowing the anticipatory bail application, the Bench held that prima facie, it does not seem that anything requires to be elicited by their custodial interrogation.

Title: Abhilash R Chandran v. State of Kerala