HC Denies Relief to Doctor Accused of Sexual Harassment, says Patient's Vulnerability Should Not Be Used as a Weapon
Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru: Observing that doctors should not use a patient's vulnerability as a weapon, the Karnataka High Court recently denied relief to a doctor accused of sexual harassment of a patient.
Based on the complaint by the patient, the accused doctor was booked for the offence punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Challenging the criminal proceedings against him, the doctor approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief.
"A doctor by profession has access to the body of the patient. If the access is utilized for the purpose of healing, it is an altogether different circumstance and a divine act. If it is utilized for some other feeling, it would clearly become advances which would attract Section 354A of IPC," observed the HC bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
The high court stated that any sexual activity by a doctor on the patient is unacceptable.
"A doctor should remember that the patients seek their help when they are in a vulnerable state – when they are sick, when they are needy and when they are uncertain about the needs to be done. The unequal distribution of power in the doctor-patient relationship may give rise to opportunities of sexual exploitation. This vulnerability should not be used as a weapon by the doctors, misusing the trust the patient reposes in the doctor. Due to such position of power and trust between the doctor and a patient, no alleged sexual activity by the doctor on the patient is acceptable. If it happens or it is alleged to have happened, it represents sexual abuse. If any act of the kind emerges even as an allegation, the relationship of trust which is between the doctor and a patient gets eroded," it noted.
The Court opined that an investigation should be permitted to be continued in the matter. Dismissing the doctor's plea, the HC bench, however, clarified that the "findings rendered are only for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and cannot bind or influence any investigation or any proceedings against the petitioner."
The complainant/patient was complaining of chest pain when she visited Orbsky Hospital, Bangalore, where the petitioner was a duty doctor. While treating the patient, the doctor suggested that she undergo an ECG, X-ray of the chest and informed her to share the details on Whatsapp. Therefore, the mobile numbers of the complainant and the doctor were exchanged. Consequently, the complainant forwarded the ECG and X-ray reports to the doctor.
After examining the reports, the petitioner doctor directed the complainant/patient to visit his personal clinic/Prasiddhi clinic at around 2.00 p.m. on 21.03.2024. When she did, he asked her to remove her shirt and touched her inappropriately on the pretext of auscultating her, the patient alleged.
Thereafter, the complainant left the clinic and informed the family members about the incident. The next day a complaint was registered for offences punishable under Section 354A of the IPC. Challenging this, the doctor approached the High Court.
The counsel for the doctor submitted that the petitioner was performing his duty as a doctor and he only placed his stethoscope on the complainant's breast as he does to every patient, as the complainant had chest congestion. He argued that the allegation that the complainant was directed to remove the shirt were false and should not be accepted. Therefore, the doctor's counsel prayed to the court to quash the FIR.
On the other hand, the Government Pleader contended that the crime was registered only on 22.03.2024 and the complaint narrated minute details. Therefore, the counsel argued that it was a matter of investigation in the least for the petitioner doctor to come out clean.
While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of the complaint and the allegations brought against the doctor. The Court also noted the Whatsapp chats between the complainant and the doctor, which were also appended to the petition and would demonstrate that the doctor had called the complainant to his personal clinic.
The bench referred to the doctor-patient relationship dynamics to point out that patients seek help from the doctors when they are in a vulnerable state, when they are sick, needy and uncertain about what needs to be done. Therefore, the court opined that this vulnerability should not be used as a weapon by doctors.
"If the complaint quoted supra is noticed, it would become clear ingredient of Section 354A of the IPC. The petitioner cannot play doctor-doctor before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings, as any such acceptance would amount to putting a premium on this doctor’s allegation on his patient – the complainant," observed the Court.
It was noted by the court that certain guidelines for doctors on sexual boundaries, were notified on the Indian Medical Council's website. Observing that the petitioner-doctor has prima facie violated all these guidelines, the Court opined that an investigation into the matter should be allowed.
"The guidelines are drawn by Indian Psychiatric Society Task Force on such boundary guidelines. The guidelines that would become germane to be noticed are that, whenever a female patient is being examined by a male practitioner, the guidelines direct that it should be ensured that it would be done in the presence of a female person, particularly at the time of physical examination. There are several other guidelines laid down by the said Task Force including that, the doctor should ensure that they do not exploit the doctor-patient relationship for personal, social, business or sexual gain. The petitioner-doctor has prima facie, violated all the above. Therefore, an investigation in the least, should be permitted to be continued," noted the Court.
"Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. It is made clear that the findings rendered are only for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and cannot bind or influence any investigation or any proceedings against the petitioner," the court clarified.
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/karnataka-hc-judgment-harassment-241109.pdf
