Man slaps Doctor for merely touching wife for the purpose of Medical Examination, denied Bail
Kochi: Observing that attack against doctors, while examining the patients, merely because they touched on the body of the patients could not be encouraged at all, the Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man who slapped a doctor, alleging that the latter had misbehaved towards his wife and touched her body.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen averred that doctors cannot clinically examine patients without touching them. He was of the view that granting anticipatory bail in such a case would lead to a 'dangerous situation', whereby doctors, who are duty bound to treat patients as part of their oath, would not get protection and the the proper maintenance of health of the public at large would also be in peril.
The court was examining a bail application filed by a resident of Palakkad, accused of slapping a doctor. The prosecution case was that, when the complainant doctor was doing on-call duty, he had examined the wife of the accused at casualty attached to Star Med Family Clinic, Karukaputhoor. While so, the accused caught hold on the medical practitioner's collar and slapped on his left cheek alleging that he touched on the body of the accused's wife.
The petitioner was therefore alleged to have committed offences punishable. Pursuant to the doctor’s complaint, the petitioner-accused was booked under relevant sections of IPC and also under Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions Act of 2012.
The petitioner then filed the instant pre-arrest bail plea.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was innocent and the allegations are false. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, "This case was registered as a counterblast to avoid legal consequence, which would arise out of the case lodged by the wife of the accused."
However, the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail submitting that the petitioner, who had criminal antecedents, and was already in four crimes, had manhandled the doctor while the latter was examining his wife , on the allegation that he touched her body. He submitted;
"Now attack against doctors are on high alarm and therefore, doctors are under threat and fear, apprehending their implication in crimes, while they will be doing their duty by examining the patients by way of clinical examinations. Therefore, threat against doctors would be detrimental to the interest of people at large. Thus it is submitted that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, where prosecution allegations are well made out."
The court perused the case records and concluded that the allegation of misbehaviour at the option of the doctor, that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, alleged to be committed in the presence of two sisters and in an open space at the casualty of the hospital cannot be believed prima facie. "It is relevant to note further that the allegation of misbehaviour was raised, after registration of this crime," the court added.
The court opined;
"Doctors, who had turmoiled their energy and time to learn the method of treating patients, when examining patients clinically, they cannot do the said exercise without touching the patients. If a patient, who wants treatment, is aggrieved in the matter of touch on the body of the petitioner as part of examination, it is difficult for a doctor to do his medical profession by resorting to clinical examination. The same would include placing of Stethoscope on the left chest portion of the patient to observe and evaluate the heart beat. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that all allegations on the ground of misbehaviour by overstepping the limit of the doctor while examining patients are false. Genuine cases of such nature could not be ruled out in toto. But generally, it could be held that truth of those allegations should be evaluated from the materials and attending circumstances to separate the grain from the chaff."
Regarding the instant case, the court noted;
"Attack against the doctor at the instance of the petitioner is well made out and in such a case, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would lead to a very dangerous situation, thereby, doctors, who are duty bound to treat patients as part of their oath, will not get protection and if so, the proper maintenance of health of the public at large would be in peril. In such case, arrest and custodial interrogation are absolutely necessary to accomplish successful investigation and eventful prosecution."
Subsequently, it held;
"Therefore, in such cases, grant of anticipatory bail, when prima facie the offences are made out, would not only spoil the investigation but would lead to traumatic situation. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition. In the result, this bail application stands dismissed."
To view the original order, click on the link below:
