On September 30th 2025, a woman named Shama Parveen arrived at the district women’s hospital in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, seeking delivery care. She alleges that upon learning she was Muslim, the female doctor on duty refused to treat her, telling family members that she would “not treat Muslim patients.” The family asserts that the doctor even directed others not to send Shama to the operating theatre for her delivery. despite being admitted to the hospital in the morning 9am, she wasn't examined till night.
Shama’s husband, Mohammed Nawaz, recounted that when he asked the doctor to examine his wife, she declined. She is said to have seen and treated other patients present in the hospital but ignored Shama and, according to the complaint, replied with discriminatory language when confronted.
The family also claims that another Muslim woman admitted to the same facility that day faced similar refusal. Even after being confronted upon, the doctor continued to ignore them.
At the time of writing, the hospital administration has not issued a public detailed denial or confirmation. The allegations have drawn local media attention, and health authorities in Uttar Pradesh are reported to be examining the case.
Such incidents, if verified, raise serious issues of medical ethics, non-discrimination, and legal obligations of doctors to provide care. Indian medical regulatory frameworks and constitutional protections prohibit discrimination based on religion in providing public health services.
Under India’s Medical Council of India / National Medical Commission (NMC) rules, physicians are bound by ethical standards that include non-discrimination and duty of care. In public hospitals, treating all patients irrespective of religion, caste, community, or gender is a fundamental expectation.
In another recent case, a pregnant Muslim woman in Kolkata, named Konkona Khatun, accused a gynecologist of refusing to treat her after learning her religious identity, citing the terror attack in Pahalgam as justification. The doctor is alleged to have told her she would not treat “Muslim patients” and made remarks linking her refusal to the Kashmir violence. The woman, who had been under her care during pregnancy, filed a police complaint after the incident.
However, establishing liability would rest on proving that denial of care was motivated by discrimination (not medical judgment) and that it led to harm or risk. Courts often examine evidence such as medical records, witness testimony, hospital logs, protocols in place, and alternate options offered.
In medical ethics discourse, this case brings into focus justice (fair distribution of care) and non-maleficence (do no harm). If denial of treatment delays necessary care, it may amount to harm.
In obstetric care, timely access to delivery and emergency obstetric services is critical. Delays in evaluating mother or fetus, performing necessary procedures (e.g. cesarean section), or providing stabilization can increase risks of maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality.
Refusing or delaying treatment for a pregnant woman can rapidly escalate into life-threatening conditions such as fetal distress, hemorrhage, hypertensive emergencies, or infections. Public health guidelines emphasize that all pregnant women, regardless of background, should receive prompt assessment and care in delivery units.
While detailed data on religiously based refusal in clinical settings is scarce, health rights advocates in India have documented instances of discrimination by providers along lines of caste, religion, gender, and economic status, particularly in rural or under-resourced settings.
(Rh/Eth/TL/MSM)