Cochin: The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 166B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a doctor accused of refusing to examine a victim in a child missing case and failing to issue a medical certificate. The Court concluded that the necessary conditions for the offence under Section 166B were not met.
However, the Court recommended an inquiry into the doctor’s conduct and suggested departmental action if warranted.
Key Observations and Rulings
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that Section 166B of the IPC applies to hospital authorities who fail to provide treatment in cases covered under Section 357C of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), such as acid attack and rape victims. Since the victim in this case did not fall into those categories, the offence under Section 166B IPC could not be invoked.
While quashing the case, the Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations against the doctor, urging the Director of Health Services to investigate and take appropriate action, if necessary.
“The morale of doctors is the backbone of healthcare. But if the allegations by the police officer are correct, it is very serious,” the Court stated.
Case Background
The case involved a 17-year-old victim who had been missing for over a month. After the police located and returned her to her family, they took her to the Senior Medical Officer for examination. The officer allegedly refused to examine the victim and reportedly insulted her. Consequently, the police had to present the victim before the Magistrate without a medical certificate.
The doctor argued that the allegations were baseless and claimed she was attending an emergency procedure in the labor room at the time. She maintained that a medical certificate had been prepared but was not collected by the police or the victim.
Inquiry Against the Police
The Court also directed an inquiry into the doctor’s allegations that the police fabricated a false case against her. It underscored the importance of integrity within the police force, stating:
“The police officer’s badge is known as a symbol of trust, honor, and courage. An inquiry by a competent officer against the second respondent (Circle Inspector) is necessary.”
The State Police Chief was instructed to assign a competent officer to investigate the allegations against the Circle Inspector.
Conclusion
The Court quashed the proceedings under Section 166B IPC, highlighting the absence of applicable circumstances, but called for inquiries into the allegations against both the doctor and the police officer to ensure accountability.
