Madras HC Rules Doctors Not Legally Obliged to Verify Pregnant Patient's Age or Report Offences

The Madras High Court recently ruled that a private medical practitioner is not legally required to verify the age of a pregnant patient or report any potential offences relating to her pregnancy. The court made this observation while quashing a criminal case filed against a 70-year-old gynaecologist from Srirangam, Tamil Nadu. The court described the prosecution as an unwarranted form of harassment that could discourage doctors from taking necessary actions to save lives.

The case originated when a young woman, accompanied by her maternal aunt, visited the doctor's clinic in February 2024, complaining of abdominal pain. An ultrasound revealed the girl was nine weeks pregnant. The doctor, upon asking the girl about her age and marital status, was told she was 18 and unmarried. However, the girl later left the hospital with her aunt after the doctor mentioned she would need to inform the police.

A few days later, the girl returned to the clinic with further health complications. The doctor administered IV fluids but refused to perform an abortion, referring the patient to the government medical college hospital. Tragically, the girl passed away at the hospital.

Following the girl's death, her sister filed a complaint, leading to the police registering a criminal case against the man who impregnated the girl, her maternal aunt, and the doctor. The charges against the doctor stemmed from an alleged failure to report the incident. However, upon further investigation, it was revealed that the girl was over 18 years old, rendering the charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act inapplicable.

Justice K. Murali Shankar, while quashing the case against the doctor, referred to a Supreme Court ruling that absolved medical professionals from the responsibility of verifying a patient's age or determining if any offences had occurred. The judge also pointed out that the doctor had acted in accordance with medical protocols by refusing to perform an abortion and referring the patient to a government hospital.

The court criticized the police investigation, noting that the FIR was filed based solely on the victim’s sister’s statement without any preliminary inquiry. The judge emphasized that such unnecessary prosecutions could discourage medical professionals from making critical decisions, ultimately compromising patient care.

In a final ruling, the court declared that pursuing the case against the doctor would constitute an abuse of the legal process and quashed the FIR.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Dr. Sruthi Suresh/MSM)