Supreme Court to lay guidelines on timely treatment- 2 hospitals ordered to pay Rs 12 lakh after 4 year old rape victim denied medical care dies

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India recently directed two Ghaziabad-based private hospitals to pay compensation to the family of a four-year-old sexual assault victim who died of injuries after being denied medical care by them. 

During the hearing of the matter on Friday (August 8, 2026), the top court bench also indicated that it would lay down broad guidelines for hospitals and law enforcement agencies to deal with victims of sexual assault and other medical emergencies and ensure timely medical care to them.

PTI has reported that a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the suo motu case related to the death of the minor girl. The victim's father, a daily wager, had approached the top court bench seeking a court-monitored probe either by a special investigation team (SIT) or the CBI in the case.

Earlier, the Apex Court had set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder of the child and had expressed concern over the conduct of the Uttar Pradesh authorities as well as the refusal of two private hospitals to admit and treat her.

The Bench took note of the report of the apex court-appointed SIT, which said that the girl, who was bleeding, was alive for almost five hours and the hospitals concerned denied her the medical care leading to her death.

Also Read: Delhi Doctor suspended for turning away rape minor, disciplinary action against hospital director

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported on the case that pertains to the sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old girl in Ghaziabad on March 16. The child was allegedly lured by a neighbour from her home on the pretext of buying chocolates. The family then began looking for her after she did not return home. She was later found unconscious and covered in blood nearby. The desperate family took her to two private hospitals, which allegedly denied admission. She was then taken to a Ghaziabad district hospital, where doctors declared her dead.

The top court had, in April, flagged the "reluctance" of the Ghaziabad Police in lodging an FIR and conducting a probe in the case. Hearing the matter on April 10, the apex court lambasted the Ghaziabad Police's "insensitive approach" in the investigation of the case.

As per the latest media report by Live Law, Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for the child's parents and submitted that the SIT report placed before the Bench painted a "damning" picture of the conduct of the hospitals. He argued, "It is a clear case of negligence on the part of the hospitals. The first hospital had the facility of calling doctors, but they neither called them nor informed anyone and simply decided to pass on the patient to the next hospital. The next hospital was a multispeciality hospital with innumerable departments. They could have treated the child. The child would have been alive."

Further, Advocate Hariharan also criticised the conduct of the police and alleged that the officers failed to faithfully record the statement of the informant. He added that the FIR was registered after a delay of 30 days and it only invoked the offence of murder without including the rape offence.

"The matters are dealt with in such an insensitive manner that it multiplies the victimisation. Your Lordships intervened in this case, but there are thousands of cases where nothing happens," the advocate submitted.

Further urging the Court to issue directions applicable to medical institutes across the country, he submitted, "There should be immediate reporting. There should be no situation where a person is allowed to leave without treatment. If you have the ability to treat and still refuse on such lame excuses, it is a ridiculous situation."

In response, the bench said that it intended to issue "positive directions" and asked Hariharan to suggest measures that could bridge the gap between the statutory framework and its implementation.

Observing that the hospitals have to pay compensation, the CJI asked how much they were willing to pay. At the outset, Senior Advocate K Babu, appearing for one hospital, submitted that it was a charitable institution run by missionaries and not a multi-specialty hospital. Meanwhile, the counsel for the other hospital submitted that theirs was a small nursing home having only one doctor. The counsel also claimed that the child was given treatment, as much was possible there, and later referred her to a bigger centre.

Justice Bagchi noted that the child's life could have been saved if proper treatment could have been given during crucial hours after the crime. He observed, "This was a four-year-old girl who had suffered such a traumatic attack. The bare minimum which could have been administered was some blood. The situation was so critical and yet you packed her off. The report says that in emergency situations doctors could be called to attend. They did not even try that."

"We are further inclined to issue some guidelines to ensure timely medical care and proper handling of such cases," the bench further noted in its order.

Also Read: 'Acted in most ruthless manner': SC rebukes 2 private hospitals, Ayurveda practitioner after 4 year old rape victim allegedly denied treatment dies