'Acted in most ruthless manner': SC rebukes 2 private hospitals, Ayurveda practitioner after 4 year old rape victim allegedly denied treatment dies
New Delhi: Observing that a child died due to alleged negligence and the failure to provide medical treatment, the Supreme Court strongly criticised two private hospitals and their doctors for allegedly refusing medical care to a four-year-old rape victim in Ghaziabad.
The observation was made by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana while hearing a plea filed by the child's father, who alleged that she was alive for two hours after she was found and that timely treatment could have saved her life.
Coming down heavily on an Ayurveda practitioner, the Bench said,
"A child is brought before you, and you are so merciless, you did not provide medical care. If you had any empathy, you would have taken her to the hospital yourself."
The case 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.
Angered by the alleged negligence, CJI Surya Kant rebuked the hospital doctors, as reported by NDTV,
"You have no business of writing 'doctor' with your name if you don't perform your duty. If you had sensitivity, you would have gone with the child to another hospital if you didn't have the facility. You ignored her because she was poor. Couldn't afford your fee."
The Chief Justice further said the Court was considering imposing compensation on the doctor.
As a penalty, the Court asked the hospitals to make voluntary donations to the child's family, warning that failure to comply would attract costs.
"When we impose penalty, it will have a chilling effect. It will be victim compensation and a reasonable compensation to the family. You have acted in the most ruthless manner," CJI Kant added, as per Law Beat report.
Earlier in April, the Supreme Court had ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fresh probe into the rape and murder case.
Expressing concern over the handling of the case, the Court had ordered the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute an SIT comprising senior women police officers. The team is to be headed by an officer of the rank of Commissioner or Inspector General of Police, assisted by a Superintendent of Police (or Additional SP) and a Deputy SP or Inspector, all women officers. The Court directed that the SIT be notified immediately and begin an investigation without delay.
The Court noted that the child's parents were unhappy with the investigation carried out by the Ghaziabad police and observed that such a "barbaric" crime required a prompt and sensitive investigation, which appeared to be missing.
The SIT has also been asked to examine all complaints made by her family, including concerns about the safety of important witnesses. It will separately investigate the role of the two private hospitals that allegedly refused to admit the child while she was still alive and needed emergency medical care.
The SIT has been directed to complete its investigation expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, and submit a supplementary report before the trial court. Until then, the ongoing trial proceedings have been kept in abeyance.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for the child's parents, alleged that despite the police claiming the investigation was complete, the her father was recently made to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also expressed concern that efforts were being made to protect the private hospitals involved in the case.
Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that a chargesheet had already been filed against the main accused and that the father's statement was part of the prosecution process.
The Supreme Court did not comment on these allegations but stressed the need for a fair and thorough investigation. It also observed that if the her family had concerns about the prosecution, they were free to appoint their own lawyer to represent them before the trial court.
Also read- Supreme Court rejects plea against NEET 2026 retest, says matter now infructuous
