Facts of the Case

The Criminal Original Petition was filed invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking an order to call for the records related to the FIR pending on the file of the All-Women Police Station, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District, and to quash the same against the petitioner. On 28.02.2024, an FIR was registered in Crime No.1 of 2024 against three individuals, including the petitioner, under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6(1), and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose following a complaint from the second respondent, the sister of the victim girl, who alleged that the victim, aged 17, was brought to Trichy Government Hospital in a serious condition and later succumbed to her injuries.

The victim, who was found to be 9 weeks pregnant, had been taken by her maternal aunt to Sudharsana Hospital for an abortion. Allegedly, the petitioner, a Senior Doctor and Gynecologist at Sudharsana Hospital, initially refused to perform the procedure. The victim returned with severe anemia and low blood pressure. Despite the petitioner’s efforts, the victim’s condition worsened, and she was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, where she ultimately passed away. The petitioner was implicated based on the statement of the victim’s sister.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the victim visited her hospital on 24.02.2024, presenting with abdominal pain and delayed periods. Following tests, the victim was found to be 9 weeks pregnant. When asked, the victim and her aunt claimed the victim was 18 years old and unmarried. The petitioner refused to perform an abortion and informed them of the requirement to report the matter to authorities. On 26.02.2024, the victim returned with severe anaemia and low blood pressure. The petitioner administered IV fluids to stabilize her condition and arranged for a referral to Trichy Government Hospital. The petitioner claimed that she acted with due diligence, had no intention to violate the law, and was not responsible for verifying the victim’s age beyond the information provided.

The petitioner emphasized that she took all necessary precautions and made arrangements for the victim’s care at the Government Hospital. She argued that the FIR was baseless and the allegations against her were false. Moreover, she highlighted that the victim’s age was disputed and that she had no responsibility under the POCSO Act to independently verify it.

Contention of the Respondent

The respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to report the pregnancy of a minor under the POCSO Act and performed medical procedures without proper due diligence. The victim’s sister contended that the petitioner’s negligence contributed to the victim’s worsening condition, which ultimately led to her death. The respondent relied on the victim’s minority status and the sequence of events leading to her hospitalization to substantiate their claims.

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that under the POCSO Act, a doctor is not obligated to independently verify a patient’s age or deduce whether an offense has been committed. The Court relied on the Apex Court’s decision in SR. Tessy Jose and others v. State of Kerala, which clarified that the “knowledge” requirement under Section 19 of the POCSO Act cannot be interpreted to mean that doctors must deduce offenses from circumstances. The Court also noted that false complaints against medical professionals could deter them from taking risks to save lives, causing harm to society at large.

The Court remarked “Medical profession is a noble profession, dedicated to the service of humanity. A Doctor’s reputation is a valuable asset; any false or malicious complaint can cause irreparable harm to their reputation and career.”

Court’s Order

The Court found no prima facie case against the petitioner and ruled that the prosecution’s reliance on the victim’s sister’s statement was insufficient. It held that the petitioner bore no responsibility for verifying the victim’s age and had acted in the best interests of the patient. The Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, emphasizing the need to protect medical professionals from unwarranted harassment and to uphold their dignity and trust in the profession.

Credits: Deeksha Rai