The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition of a doctor accused of sexually harassing a patient, highlighted that the inherent vulnerability of patients must not be exploited by those in positions of trust.
Case Background
The doctor, accused under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), challenged the crime registration against him. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, highlighted the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship, noting that patients seek help when they are most vulnerable. The court stressed that any misuse of this trust for sexual exploitation is unacceptable and constitutes sexual abuse.
The court observed , “A doctor should remember that the patients seek their help when they are in a vulnerable state – when they are sick, when they are needy, and when they are uncertain about the needs to be done. The unequal distribution of power in the doctor-patient relationship may give rise to opportunities for sexual exploitation. This vulnerability should not be used as a weapon by the doctors, misusing the trust the patient reposes in the doctor. Due to such position of power and trust between the doctor and a patient, no alleged sexual activity by the doctor on the patient is acceptable. If it happens or it is alleged to have happened, it represents sexual abuse. If any act of the kind emerges even as an allegation, the relationship of trust which is between the doctor and a patient gets eroded.”
Incident Details and Legal Proceedings
The complainant, suffering from chest pain, visited the hospital where the accused doctor was on duty. After recommending an ECG and X-ray, the doctor asked the complainant to share the reports via WhatsApp and later directed her to visit his private clinic. During this visit, it was alleged that the doctor behaved inappropriately by asking the complainant to remove her clothing and touching her inappropriately.
The complainant reported the incident to her family, leading to a complaint under Section 354A of the IPC. The doctor sought to quash the proceedings, which the court refused.
Court’s Reasoning and Guidelines
The court noted that Section 354A of the IPC covers physical contact and unwelcome sexual advances. The doctor’s actions fell squarely under these provisions. Furthermore, the court pointed out the guidelines provided by the Indian Medical Council, which recommend the presence of a female attendant during examinations by a male doctor to prevent such incidents.
The court highlighted that the doctor appeared to have violated these guidelines, justifying the continuation of the investigation.
Case details; Dr. Chethan Kumar S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., with the neutral citation number 2024:KHC:19526.