PNDT Act: Doctor gets bail as CTG machine proves to be unfit for sex selection
"The Doctor got bail under PCPNDT Act, as the CTG machine was proved to be unfit for sex selection/determination"
Now if such actions are to be continued, the day is not so far when the stethoscopes will be confiscated...
In the recent judgment, Hon. Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Dr. Sushila Khinchi vs State of Rajasthan, while granting to Bail to the Petitioner Doctor, raised the doubts over action of AA. It was revealed that the CTG machine was proved to be unfit for sex selection/determination and this became the ground for the doctor to get bail under the PC-PNDT act
The public prosecutor submitted the Inquiry report made by the Board consisting of experts on the subject. The report was signed by Joint Director of Medical and Health as well as Professor and the Head of Department of Oby & Gyn.
After going through the report, His Lordship observed that
Learned Public Prosecutor has also brought to my notice Inquiry Report dated 24.03.2017, prepared by Board consisting of experts on the subject. As per report, CTG machine, which was seized from the clinic of petitioner Dr. Sushila Khinchi, cannot be utilized for sex selection/determination of a foetus. The report is signed by Joint Director of Medical and Health as well as Professor and the Head of Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Therefore, taking into account, the fact that equipment, which was recovered from the clinic of petitioner, Dr. Sushila Khinchi, cannot be utilized for sex determination of foetus, in my considered opinion, prima facie, offences slapped against petitioner under the PCPNDT Act are under serious clouds.
The Report revealed that CTG machine, which was seized from the clinic of petitioner Dr. Sushila Khinchi, cannot be utilized for sex selection/determination of a foetus. .
On this background the Doctor was granted Bail and with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so
Thanks and Regards
Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune.©
Dr. Sushila Khinchi vs State on 7 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.