Back
Groping Patients During Medical Exams is Criminal: Gauhati HC
In a landmark ruling reinforcing the sanctity of patient-doctor relationships and the bodily autonomy of women, the has upheld the conviction of a doctor for of a patient. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, presiding in the case of , firmly rejected the appellant’s plea that his conduct constituted a "routine" medical examination.
A Breach of Trust: Case Background The case dates back to , when a young student visited Lily Medical Hall in Morigaon, Assam, seeking a consultation for irregular menstrual cycles. According to the prosecution, Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah requested the victim to enter his private chamber for a physical examination. Once inside, the physician proceeded to unbutton the girl’s blouse, grope her breasts, and, when she protested, attempted to further violate her. The victim eventually managed to escape and raised an alarm, leading her brother to file an FIR with the .
Following the investigation, the found the doctor guilty under , a judgment that was later upheld by the . The petitioner then challenged these before the High Court.
The Contentious Argument of 'Routine Practice' During the , the petitioner’s counsel argued that the conviction was flawed due to the non-examination of certain medical officers and alleged contradictions in the victim's testimony. Crucially, the defense maintained that the acts complained of were part of a standard gynaecological examination.
The High Court swiftly dismissed these contentions. Justice Khaund observed that while a doctor may perform necessary examinations for menstrual ailments, the specific actions of the accused exceeded any professional requirement.
"A doctor may touch the tummy or the abdomen, but he is not required to squeeze the breasts for any pregnancy test,"
the bench remarked, highlighting the absurdity of the defense's claims.
Key Observations The High Court’s ruling provides clear guidance for future cases involving sexual assault in medical settings:
- On the Nature of Modesty: “The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or asleep, the woman possesses modesty capable of being outraged.”
- On the Sufficiency of Evidence: “In such cases, the evidence of the , if found to be consistent, can be relied on. It is true that eyewitnesses in such cases are not forthcoming. The victim is the person who can justify if her modesty has been outraged.”
- On Professional Misconduct: “This conduct of the petitioner cannot be considered to be a routine examination of a gynaecologist to cure irregular menstrual period. The victim was not required to unhook her blouse as she was suffering from irregular periods which is an internal problem.”
Final Decision and Relief While the Court maintained the conviction, it showed leniency regarding the sentence due to the advanced age of the 71-year-old petitioner and the passage of time since the incident. The original two-year prison sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine of Rs 5,000, to be deposited with the , as compensation for the victim.
This verdict serves as a vital precedent, explicitly stating that a doctor's opinion is not a to determine whether modesty has been outraged. By shielding the victim’s account from the demand for impossible medical corroboration, the Court has strengthened the legal mechanism for holding professionals accountable for sexual harassment.
