'Don't Call Yourself A Doctor': SC Raps Hospital Over 4-Year-Old Rape Victim's Death In Ghaziabad

The Supreme Court castigated a Ghaziabad hospital for allegedly denying emergency treatment to a four-year-old rape victim who later died.

The Supreme Court highlighted serious lapses in the police investigation, noting delays in FIR registration and the initial omission of POCSO and rape charges.

Source : PTI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• SC criticized hospital, doctor for denying treatment to child.
• Court found serious lapses in police investigation too.
• Victim's family alleged timely treatment could have saved her.
• SC emphasized accountability, not just compensation, for tragedy.

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on a private hospital and one of its doctors over allegations that they refused emergency treatment to a four-year-old rape survivor in Ghaziabad, who later succumbed to her injuries. Calling the conduct "merciless" and "insensitive", the court questioned the doctor's ethics and said merely imposing a financial penalty would not ensure accountability.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also continued its scrutiny of the police investigation into the case, highlighting serious lapses in the handling of the child's complaint and subsequent probe.

Supreme Court Questions Doctor's Ethics

During the hearing, the Bench strongly criticised the hospital's alleged failure to provide emergency medical care to the child, observing that every doctor has a duty to ensure treatment is provided in such cases, irrespective of financial considerations.

The Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval of the hospital's conduct. He said, "A child victim of such a heinous crime 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 Bench also questioned the doctor's professional ethics. The court further remarked: "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 Supreme Court indicated that it would examine possible action against the hospital and resume hearing the matter next week, likely on July 21.

Court Continues To Examine Police Investigation

The Bench also revisited concerns regarding the police investigation, noting that it had earlier criticised the Ghaziabad Police for delays and procedural lapses.

The court had previously observed that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered a day after the incident despite the victim being only four years old. It also questioned why charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and rape provisions were not initially invoked, even though the post-mortem reportedly documented injuries to the child's private parts consistent with assault by a blunt object.

The Supreme Court had earlier summoned the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner and the Station House Officer of Nandgram Police Station to explain the sequence of events and the investigation.

Family Alleges Delay Cost Child's Life

According to submissions before the court, the child's family first took her to two private hospitals, both of which allegedly refused to treat her.

She was later shifted to the district hospital in Ghaziabad, where doctors declared her dead.

Her father has alleged that the child remained alive for nearly two hours after she was found and that timely medical intervention could have saved her life.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court found merit in the family's allegation that emergency treatment was not provided promptly.

The court has directed the hospitals to make voluntary contributions to the victim's family, warning that failure to comply could invite additional costs.

The Bench also reiterated that accountability, and not merely compensation, was central to the case.

The police response has also remained under judicial scrutiny. According to the family, they approached local police immediately after the incident but allegedly faced inaction before an FIR was finally registered on March 17. The accused was arrested the following day, though the initial FIR did not include charges under the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.