The Karnataka High Court has refused to minimize proceedings against a Bengaluru-based doctor accused of sexually harassing a patient. Dr. Chethan Kumar S. faced allegations of inappropriate conduct during a medical examination, resulting in a court case that highlighted the importance of maintaining professional boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship.
The patient, who was experiencing chest pain, initially visited Dr. Kumar at Orbsky Hospital in JP Nagar. After suggesting an ECG and chest X-ray, Dr. Kumar instructed her to share the results via WhatsApp and later asked her to visit his personal clinic, Prasiddhi Clinic, for further examination.
During the clinic visit, the patient reported that Dr. Kumar asked her to remove her shirt in the name of a medical examination and inappropriately touched her. She reported the incident to her family, leading to a police complaint the next day. The police filed a case under IPC Section 354A, which deals with sexual harassment.
Dr. Kumar challenged the FIR, claiming he was simply doing his duty. He argued that he placed his stethoscope on the patient's chest as part of the examination and denied the allegation that he asked her to remove her clothes. His defense lawyer, Advocate Afroz Pasha, maintained that the doctor's actions were misconstrued and that the patient’s claims were baseless and aimed at tarnishing his reputation.
However, the prosecution, led by Harish Ganapath, provided a detailed account of the incident, emphasizing that the patient's allegations of being kissed and inappropriately touched met the criteria for sexual harassment under IPC Section 354A. The prosecution also highlighted the WhatsApp communication between the doctor and the patient, which corroborated her account of being called to the personal clinic.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, scrutinized the complaint, WhatsApp chats, and arguments from both sides. He emphasized the power dynamics in the doctor-patient relationship, noting that patients are often vulnerable when seeking medical help. The judge pointed out that any misuse of the trust and access given to doctors for personal gratification constitutes a severe breach of professional ethics and legal boundaries.
The court underscored that doctors must use their privileged access to patients' bodies solely for healing purposes. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that having a female attendant present during examinations of female patients is a standard guideline meant to prevent such incidents.
According to Justice Nagaprasanna's decision, there was a requirement for an investigation since there was an apparent violation of Dr. Kumar's sexual boundary rules. He concluded that the allegations against Dr. Kumar, including instructing the patient to remove her clothes and the inappropriate touch, deserved further investigation and enabled the investigation to proceed.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/ Susmita Bhandary/MSM)
