The Karnataka High Court has declined to drop the case against a doctor in Bengaluru who a patient has accused of engaging in sexual harassment. The patient claimed that he had inappropriately touched her during a consultation after she had gone to the doctor complaining of chest trouble. However, the doctor asserted that at the time of the purported occurrence, he was carrying out his professional obligations.
In his decision, Justice M Nagaprasanna made it clear that the doctor’s request to stop the proceedings could not be granted by the court because doing so would mean favoring his account of the events over the patient’s. The judge emphasized that it is a holy duty for a medical professional to have access to a patient’s body in order to treat them. But if this access is abused for one’s own benefit, it becomes an advance and is punishable by sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
When the complainant complained of chest trouble, the doctor at the JP Nagar hospital suggested that she get an ECG and an X-ray. Later, on March 21, he invited her to his private clinic. It is said that during this appointment, the doctor requested her to take off her shirt and then inappropriately groped her while pretending to use his stethoscope. The patient informed her relatives about the occurrence, and the next day she lodged a complaint with the Puttenahalli police. IPC Section 354A, which addresses sexual harassment, was cited by the police.
The doctor claimed in answer to the FIR that his acts were typical of a medical checkup. He asserted that it was untrue to ask the woman to take off her clothes and that, given her complaint of chest congestion, placing the stethoscope on her chest was a required step. Notwithstanding these assertions, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that the doctor-patient interaction is fundamentally characterized by an uneven power dynamic, which can give rise to sexual exploitation opportunities. He emphasized that physicians in particular need to be aware of this dynamic and make sure they don’t abuse the trust that patients have in them.
The doctor’s conduct seemed to have prima facie broken the rules governing the maintenance of sexual boundaries in the medical profession, according to Justice Nagaprasanna. He therefore came to the conclusion that the claims warranted further study. The judge emphasized how crucial it is to uphold one’s professional integrity and the ethical obligations that come with working in the medical field. He emphasized that although medical therapy requires access to a patient’s body, this access must be treated with the utmost care and respect to prevent exploitation or abuse.
The story highlights how vulnerable the doctor-patient relationship is and how misusing power dynamics may lead to abuse. It emphasizes how important it is for medical professionals to strictly follow professional standards and behave ethically. Regardless of the accused’s professional standing, the court’s decision to permit the investigation to continue shows that it is committed to making sure that claims of sexual harassment are taken seriously and carefully investigated.Medical personnel should take note of this episode as a reminder of how crucial it is to uphold boundaries and show compassion for patients who are vulnerable. Doctors must maintain the highest standards of professionalism and reliability because patients seek medical attention in times of need and distress. Any betrayal of this trust damages the patient personally and erodes public trust in the medical system.
This case emphasizes the significance of institutional and legal frameworks for handling sexual harassment and guaranteeing responsibility in a larger sense. Institutions must uphold the values of justice and fairness while offering assistance to victims and channels for redress. These values and the role of the legal system in protecting people’s rights and dignity will be demonstrated by the ongoing investigation.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
