On July, 17th, The Supreme Court tore into two private hospitals and their doctors in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, for refusing emergency treatment to a four-year-old rape victim who later died. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana called the hospitals' conduct "merciless, ruthless and insensitive" and directed them to pay reasonable compensation to the child's grieving family.
The bench heard the matter as part of an ongoing plea filed by the victim's father, a daily-wage worker, who has sought a court-monitored investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the CBI into both the crime and the medical negligence that followed it. The court has listed the case for further hearing next week.
The tragedy unfolded on March 16, 2026, when a neighbour allegedly lured the four-year-old girl away from her home in Ghaziabad on the pretext of buying her chocolates. When the child failed to return, her father launched a frantic search and eventually found her lying unconscious and soaked in blood.
The desperate family rushed her to two private medical facilities,Khajan Singh Mannvi Health Care and St Joseph (Mariam) Hospital, seeking emergency care. Both hospitals allegedly denied her admission. She was finally taken to a government hospital in Ghaziabad, where doctors declared her dead.
According to PTI, during Friday's hearing, the CJI did not hold back while addressing the hospitals and doctors accused of refusing care. The bench told them they had no business calling themselves doctors if they failed to perform their duty, adding that genuine sensitivity would have compelled them to personally take the child to another hospital rather than turn her away. The court also pointedly asked whether the family's poverty and inability to pay had been the real reason for the refusal.
CJI Surya Kant remarked that the hospitals had acted in the most ruthless manner, and cautioned that any monetary penalty the court imposed was meant to create a lasting affect across the medical fraternity, not merely punish this one case.
The bench directed the hospitals to voluntarily pay reasonable compensation to the victim's family, invoking India's statutory victim-compensation framework under Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita formerly Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entitles victims of serious crimes and their families to financial assistance. The court signalled it would not hesitate to impose a stronger cost on the hospitals at future hearings if adequate compensation was not offered voluntarily.
Friday's rebuke builds on directions the Supreme Court issued across two hearings in April 2026. On April 10, the bench first lambasted the Ghaziabad Police's "insensitive approach" and flagged its reluctance to promptly register an FIR and investigate the case. Two weeks later, on April 24, the court ordered the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute an all-woman Special Investigation Team, to be led by an officer of Inspector General or Commissioner rank, supported by a Superintendent of Police or Additional SP, and a Deputy SP or Inspector.
The SIT was directed to begin work immediately and complete its investigation within two weeks, submitting a supplementary report to the trial court, with the trial itself kept in abeyance pending that report. The team was also tasked with examining the family's grievances, including concerns about witness protection, and independently scrutinising the conduct of the two private hospitals accused of denying treatment.
The April orders also directed notices to the Uttar Pradesh government, the station house officer (SHO) of the concerned police station, the two hospitals, and the executive magistrate.
Appearing for the victim's parents, Senior Advocate N Hariharan told the bench that the father was recently pressured into recording a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, despite police claims that the investigation was already complete, a development he argued pointed to procedural irregularities. Hariharan also voiced concern that efforts were underway to shield the private hospitals from scrutiny.
As reported by PTI, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati countered that a chargesheet had already been filed and the trial court had taken cognisance of the case against the main accused. She maintained that recording the father's statement was a necessary part of the prosecution process, not evidence of coercion.
The bench declined to rule on the merits of these competing claims, instead directing its focus toward ensuring a fair and thorough probe. It noted that the victim's family remained free to engage independent legal counsel before the trial court if they had concerns about how the prosecution was proceeding.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)