Case Description
Dr. Chethan Kumar S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Karnataka High Court
Case Type: Criminal Petition
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 4868 of 2024
Date of Order: 03.06.2024
Bench: Mr. M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Facts
- Petitioner is a doctor who works at Orbsky Hospital. Respondent 2 visited him with complaints of chest pain. The petitioner suggested her to get an ECG and Xray and send him the reports through WhatsApp. They shared their contacts for this purpose.
- Respondent 2 forwarded him the reports and was directed by the petitioner to visit his personal clinic for further treatment.
- Respondent 2 alleged that when she went for her appointment, the petitioner asked her to lie down for examination. He first put his stethoscope on her breast to check her heartbeat and then asked her to pull up her shirt and bra. She further alleged that he had then placed his hands on her left breast and had even started kissing it.
- The Respondent then left the clinic and informed her family about the incident. Next day, she lodged a complaint under Section 354A of IPC against the petitioner.
- The lodging of complaint led to the petitioner filing an application of Section 482 CrPC in the court, seeking quashing of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether the complaint filed by respondent 2 under Section 354A of IPC has the necessary ingredients to form an offence under the said section, and if not, can a petition under Section 482 CrPC be allowed to quash the same?
Laws Involved
- Section 354A of Indian Penal Code 1860 (“IPC”)
- Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“CrPC”)
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Petitioner contended that he was merely performing his duty as a doctor. He had to place his stethoscope on the breast of the complainant as she had come to him for the examination of chest congestion.
- Further, it was submitted that the allegation of him asking the Respondent 2 to remove her shirt and bra was false and should not be accepted.
- Lastly, petitioner’s counsel pleaded that the ingredients required to be present to form an offence under Section 354A of IPC were absent in her complaint. Hence, the FIR should be quashed.
Respondent 2’s Argument
- Respondent 2 refuted the petitioner’s submission and contended that the complaint registered narrates minute details of the incident. The counsel emphasized that there must be an investigation at the least, post which the petitioner can come out clean. Hence, the petition must be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis
- The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent 2 is that of a doctor and a patient. Respondent 2 went to the hospital complaining of chest pain. The petitioner suggested an ECG & chest Xray, and then asked for respondent 2’s number for communication of reports. The issue emerged when the petitioner asked her to visit his personal clinic.
- On perusal of the complaint, the Court noted that till the point where the petitioner had placed the stethoscope on respondent 2’s chest, it was a matter of petitioner treating his patient. There can be no qualms about it.
- Referring to Section 354 (i) of IPC, the Hon’ble Bench highlighted that as per the complaint, if the doctor had allegedly placed his mouth on the left breast of respondent 2, it would fulfil the ingredients of the said section and attract its application.
- The Hon’ble Judge opined that the unequal distribution of power in doctor-patient relationship may give rise to opportunities of sexual exploitation. Due to such disbalance of power and trust between the two, no alleged sexual activity by the doctor on patient is acceptable. If it happens or is alleged to have happened, it represents sexual abuse and erodes the relationship of trust between a doctor and a patient.
- Certain guidelines for doctors on sexual boundaries are notified on the website of the Indian Medical Council. An important guideline pertinent to the matter is that when a female patient is examined by a male practitioner, there must be a female person present there; especially if there is a physical examination.
Conclusion
- A doctor by profession has access to the body of a patient. If the access is utilized for the purpose of healing, it is a divine act. However, if it is used for some other feeling, it would clearly become advances which would attract Section 354A of IPC.
- There are several guidelines laid down by the Indian Psychiatric Society Task Force that include that the doctor should ensure that they do not exploit the doctor-patient relationship for personal, social, business or sexual gain.
- The petitioner in this matter has, prima facie, violated such guidelines. Moreover, in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 354A IPC are present. Therefore, there must be an investigation.
- The Court, thus, rejected the petition. It was clarified that the findings present in the judgement is solely for rejecting the petition for quashing the FIR and that it should not influence any investigation or proceeding against the petitioner.