‘Drop Doctor From Your Name’: SC Slams Hospitals for Refusing 4-Year-Old Rape Victim

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on hospitals and an Ayurvedic practitioner for refusing to provide emergency medical care to a four-year-old rape victim. The bench, visibly disturbed by the sequence of events, did not mince words while pulling up those who turned the child away.

“Don’t write ‘doctor’ if you don’t perform your duty. Drop the word doctor from your name,” the court told the Ayurvedic doctor who allegedly failed to treat the minor. The child had been brought to him in a critical condition after being raped.

‘Merciless, ruthless, insensitive’

The court’s remarks came during a hearing on a petition related to the case. The judges described the conduct of the medical professionals as “merciless, ruthless, and insensitive.” The child, barely four years old, was reportedly taken to multiple facilities before any treatment was administered.

The bench questioned why the hospitals had refused admission. “Because she is poor? Because she is a rape victim? What is the reason?” the court asked, highlighting the apparent bias against the economically weaker sections. The hospitals, the court noted, seemed more concerned about legal hassles than saving a life.

Ayurvedic doctor under scanner

The focus of the court’s ire was an Ayurvedic doctor who the child’s family approached first. Instead of stabilising the patient or referring her to a higher centre, the doctor allegedly turned her away. The Supreme Court observed that such behaviour was a violation of the basic ethical obligations of any medical practitioner.

“You claim to be a doctor. When a four-year-old girl is brought to you in such a state, your first duty is to help. Not to make excuses,” the bench said. The court has demanded a detailed explanation from the doctor and the hospitals involved, warning of strict action if negligence is proven.

A pattern of denial

The case has once again brought to light the troubling trend of hospitals, both private and public, refusing to treat rape victims and accident victims. The Supreme Court has in the past issued guidelines mandating that no hospital can deny emergency care, yet violations continue.

In this instance, the child’s parents had to run from one facility to another, losing precious time. The bench expressed its anguish over the repeated failure of the system to protect the most vulnerable. “This is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom of a larger rot,” the court remarked.

The matter has been posted for further hearing next week. The court has also sought a status report on the child’s medical condition and the steps taken by the state to ensure her well-being.

What happens next: The Supreme Court will continue hearing the case on the next date, with the Ayurvedic doctor and hospital authorities expected to file their responses. The court’s final order could set a precedent for accountability in emergency medical care.