news details |
|
|
| SC raps doctors in minor's rape-murder case | | | Early Times Report
New Delhi, July 17: The Supreme Court on Friday slammed two private hospitals and their doctors for failing to provide timely medical care to a four-year-old rape-and-murder victim in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghaziabad in March.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the hospitals to grant a reasonable compensation to the family.
“You have no business of writing ‘doctor’ if you do not perform your duty. If you had sensitivity, you would have gone with the child to the other hospital if you did not have facility…. You ignored because she was poor? Couldn’t afford your fee?” the CJI told the doctors.
The matter will again be heard next week.
On March 16, the victim was allegedly lured away by a neighbour on the pretext of buying her chocolates. When the child did not return, her father launched a search and found her lying unconscious and soaked in blood.
The family took her to the two private hospitals, which allegedly denied admission. She was taken to a government hospital in Ghaziabad, where doctors declared her dead.
The top court had, in April, flagged the “reluctance” of the Ghaziabad Police in lodging an FIR and conducting a probe in the case. It had also directed the two private hospitals — Khajan Singh Mannvi Health Care and St Joseph (Mariam) Hospital — which had allegedly denied treatment to the victim, to file their affidavits in response to the allegations made against them.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by the victim’s father, a daily wager, seeking a court-monitored probe either by a special investigation team (SIT) or the CBI in the case.
Hearing the matter on April 10, the apex court lambasted the Ghaziabad Police’s “insensitive approach” in the investigation of the case.
The bench had issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government, the station house officer (SHO) of the police station concerned, the two hospitals and the executive magistrate.
It had directed police and the hospitals to ensure that the identity of the victim and her family members was not disclosed and to redact any such information from their records.
The bench had also asked the state police not to harass the victim’s family members.
The court had expressed dismay at the fact that the two private hospitals had refused to admit the bleeding girl and she was eventually declared dead at a government hospital. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
