The Supreme Court on Friday raided two private hospitals for allegedly refusing to provide treatment to a four-year-old rape victim who later succumbed to her injuries in Ghaziabad. Terming the hospitals’ conduct as “heartless” and “heartless”, the Supreme Court ordered them to pay compensation to the bereaved family.
The high court’s ire was specifically against an Ayurvedic doctor who failed to provide initial medical care to the boy. “You do not have to write to a doctor with your name if you do not do your duty,” said a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
‘IGNORED BECAUSE SHE WAS POOR?’
“If you had any sensitivity, you would have gone with the girl to another hospital if you didn’t have the facilities. Did you ignore her because she was poor?” the court further said, according to a Bar and Bench report.
The incident occurred in early March this year in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The girl’s family has claimed that her neighbor took her on the pretext of buying chocolates. When he did not return, a frantic search began. She was later found unconscious and covered in blood.
The girl’s family alleged that she was taken to two private hospitals, but they refused to admit her. She was then taken to Ghaziabad district hospital, where doctors declared her brought dead.
The family then went to the Supreme Court, alleging serious flaws in the investigation and medical response to the case. In April, the Supreme Court ordered an SIT investigation, which concluded that the hospitals were not providing timely care.
“A child victim of such a heinous crime is brought before you, and you are so ruthless that you did not provide him with medical care,” the CJI said.
“When we impose a sentence, it will have a chilling effect. Let us think about compensating the victims and granting reasonable compensation to the family,” the Supreme Court added.
In its previous hearing, the Supreme Court had come down heavily on the Ghaziabad police after pointing out several lapses in its investigation, which it called “insensitive”.
The CJI noted that the FIR in the case was registered only a day after the incident and no provisions were added under the POCSO Act. Further, the court said that rape charges were not initially added to the FIR even though the autopsy revealed injuries on the boy’s private parts.
The Supreme Court said there seemed to be a “secretive approach” around the incident and eventually ordered an SIT probe.
– Finish
