HC quashes FIR against Gynaecologist for not reporting POCSO Case: Doctors Not Liable for Verifying Victim's Age

Chennai: Observing that the doctors are not responsible for verifying the victim’s age for abortion or ascertaining whether an offence had been committed, the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a 70-year-old Gynaecologist who was accused of failing to report an offence involving a minor girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The doctor, the petitioner in this case was accused of not verifying the minor girl's age, which is 17, although the doctor asserts that the victim's family informed them that she was 18. When the petitioner refused to perform the abortion, explaining the need to report the matter to the police and the District Collector, the victim's family left the hospital with her. They later returned with the patient when her condition had worsened and become critical.

The petitioner argued that no abortion was performed on the victim at Sudharsana Hospital. Instead, the victim received treatment for her weak condition and low haemoglobin levels, and she ultimately passed away. The main contention of the petitioner is that the allegations in the FIR are completely false and that she is innocent and has not committed any offence.  

Also read- Chhattisgarh HC allows minor rape victim with Sickle Cell Anaemia to terminate 20-week pregnancy

Hearing the matter, Single Bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar noted, "The precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are directly relevant to the present case. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has astutely noted, the petitioner bore no responsibility to verify the victim girl's age or ascertain whether offences had been committed. In light of this, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the provisions of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act are inapplicable to the petitioner."

The prosecution alleged that a 17-year-old victim was brought to the petitioner’s hospital by her aunt and was found to be nine weeks pregnant upon examination. Subsequently, during the abortion process, the victim did not cooperate and experienced heavy bleeding. She was then taken to the Trichy Government Hospital, where she died despite treatment. Based on the victim’s sister’s complaint, the case was registered.

The petitioner argued that when the victim was brought to the hospital by her aunt, the petitioner inquired about her age and was informed that the victim was 18 years old and unmarried. The petitioner further stated that when the victim and her aunt insisted on the abortion, the petitioner refused and informed them that the police and district collector would need to be notified. Following this, the victim and her aunt left the hospital.

The petitioner also mentioned that when the victim and her aunt returned to the hospital complaining of dizziness and weakness, the petitioner administered IV fluids due to low haemoglobin and blood pressure. The petitioner stated that all necessary steps were taken to ensure the victim was transferred to the Trichy Government Hospital, however she unfortunately died.

Following the victim's death, a complaint was lodged by her sister, accusing the petitioner of failing to report the case as required under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. The doctor and two others were charged under Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 6(1), and 21(1) of the POCSO Act, and Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner argued that a crucial element under the POCSO Act is the minority status of the victim, and in the present case, the victim claimed to be 18 years old. It was contended that the victim’s age was contradictory in records, and thus relying solely on the sister’s statement was insufficient for the police to proceed.

Following this, the Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in SR Tessy Jose and Others v. State of Kerala, (2018) 8 SCC 292, which held that doctors are not required to deduce or infer knowledge of an offence based on circumstances.

"The complaint relies solely on her maternal aunt's information. The prosecution has not examined other witnesses present at Sudharsana Hospital. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 312 IPC or related offences. T

The investigating officer registered the FIR solely based on the second respondent's hearsay statement, without conducting a preliminary enquiry. Such treatment of medical professionals may discourage them from taking necessary risk to save lives, instead adopting a “play-it-safe” approach, ultimately harming patient care," observed the court.

Further, it also added that, "Now-a-days, we come across attacks on the doctors and hospitals. Doctors, the Guardian of life, embody a noble profession, often revered as akin to God / Almighty, as they possess the extraordinary ability to save lives and restore health. While acknowledging the presence of quacks and corporatized hospitals, it is essential to recognize that majority of medical practitioners dedicate their life to serve humanity with compassion and expertise."

The Court highlighted the critical role of doctors in society, stating that false complaints against doctors can lead to unwanted harassment by police authorities, causing immense stress, and reputational damage, and impacting their ability to practice medicine.

"It is crucial to accord Doctors the respect and dignity, they deserve and failing to do so, can have devastating consequences on society, including demotivation among medical professionals, decreased access to quality health care and erosion of trust in the medical community," said the court.

Considering the facts, the court concluded that the evidence do not point against the doctor and that permitting prosecution against the doctor would be unnecessary, unwarranted, and amount to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the court quashed the case against the petitioner.

To view the official order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/madras-hc-order-268209.pdf

Also read- Kerala: Doctor arrested for performing illegal abortion of minor girl