CASE BRIEF: CHETHAN NAIDU S V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2024

CASE NAME	Dr. Chethan Naidu S v. State of Karnataka, 2024
CITATION	CRL. P 4868 of 2024
COURT	Karnataka High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice M. Nagaprasanna
PETITIONER	Dr. Chethan Naidu S
RESPONDENT	State of Karnataka
DECIDED ON	3rd June 2024

INTRODUCTION

The petitioner, Dr. Chethan Naidu, challenged the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Crime No. 110 of 2024, which is at the heart of Dr. Chethan Naidu S v. State of Karnataka. The FIR charges Dr. Naidu with professional misconduct, claiming that he committed harmful acts against the ethical standards of his profession while working as a doctor. According to the complainant, Dr. Naidu’s conduct resulted in serious medical mistakes or neglect, which could have jeopardized patient safety.

In his petition, Dr. Naidu argues that his professional conduct and medical practices were in accordance with the norms required of a certified practitioner and that the accusations made in the FIR are false and unfounded. He attempts to have the FIR dismissed, claiming that the accusations against him are unsupported by any real proof. The petition emphasizes how crucial due process is and how professionals should be shielded from baseless criminal accusations that could harm their reputations and jobs.

In this instance, it is up to the Karnataka High Court to decide whether the FIR was legitimate and whether Dr. Naidu’s accusations call for additional legal action. The case raises important questions about doctors’ professional accountability and the legal procedures that handle claims of medical misconduct or carelessness. It also emphasizes the fine line that must be drawn between the rights of healthcare providers and the requirement for accountability in order to protect patients’ safety and well-being. The verdict in this case may have wider ramifications for the Karnataka and international medical communities.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant is the second respondent. The only person accused is the petitioner. By profession, the petitioner works as a doctor. The petitioner was the on-call physician at Orbsky Hospital in Bangalore’s JP Nagar 7th Phase when the complainant arrived with chest trouble. After treating the complainant, he advises her to have an ECG and a chest X-ray, and he tells her to post the information on his WhatsApp. The doctor and the complainant exchanged mobile numbers. The complainant sent the X-ray and ECG findings to the doctor over WhatsApp. After reviewing the reports, the petitioner instructs the complaint to come to his Prasiddhi clinic, his personal clinic, on March 21, 2024, at around 2:00 pm.

It is reported that the petitioner was alone when the complainant visited the clinic. After escorting the patient into a room, the doctor instructs her to lie down and begins monitoring her heartbeat by placing a stethoscope on her breast. The patient is then instructed to pull up her bra and skirt. The doctor allegedly began to caress the left breast with his hands and even planted a kiss on it. After leaving the gathering, the complaint talks to the family members about what happened. The following day, March 22, 2024, is when the complaint is filed for offenses covered by Section 354A of the IPC. The petitioner’s motivation for coming to this court in the subject petition is the crime’s registration.

ISSUES RAISED

Is the FIR against Dr. Chethan Naidu legitimate and supported by sufficient evidence?
Does the applicable legal framework consider Dr. Naidu’s acts, as claimed in the FIR, to be professional misconduct or negligence?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments from the Petitioner

The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney argues that the petitioner was carrying out his professional obligations as a physician. Since the patient’s complaint was chest congestion, he just put his stethoscope on the patient’s breast, as he does with all of his patients.
The claim that the complainant was told to take off the bra and top is untrue and shouldn’t be believed. According to him, the alleged offense is the one that is punished under Section 354A of the IPC, and the case at hand does not have any of the required factors. The knowledgeable attorney would attempt to have the FIR quashed.

Arguments from the Respondent

The complainant claims that when she arrived at the petitioner’s private clinic, she was told to lie down so that the complainant could be examined further. The petitioner then placed the stethoscope on the complainant’s breast. Up until this point, it was evident that the petitioner was treating the patient in a complamant manner. That cannot raise any concerns.
The doctor allegedly instructed the plaintiff to lift the shirt and bea for additional examination. Following a five-minute examination, it is alleged that he has placed his mouth on his left breast. After reportedly running away in a panic and experiencing trauma, the complainant filed a complaint the next day. The petition also includes the complainant and doctor’s WhatsApp conversations, which show that the doctor summoned the complainant to its private clinic.

JUDGMENT

The four components of Section 354A of the IPC are advances involving unwanted and explicit sexual overtures as well as physical contact. For the purposes of this case, the other three elements are irrelevant. Since it is clearly an unwanted and explicit overture, the doctor’s act of telling the complainant to take off her shirt and bra and putting his mouth on her left breast would surely become one of the ingredients of Section 354A of the IPC qua clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 354A of the IPC.

By profession, a doctor has access to a patient’s body. A completely different situation and a divine act arise if the access is used for therapeutic purposes. It would obviously be considered an advancement subject to Section 354A of the IPC if used for any other purpose. Physicians should remember that patients seek their assistance when they are in a vulnerable position, such as when they are ill, in need, or unsure of what has to be done. Opportunities for sexual exploitation may arise from the unequal power dynamics in the doctor-patient interaction.

By profession, a doctor has access to a patient’s body. A completely different situation and a divine act arises if the access is used for therapeutic purposes. It would obviously be considered an advancement and subject to Section 354A of the IPC if it were used for any other purpose. Physicians should keep in mind that patients seek their assistance when they are in a vulnerable position, such as when they are ill, in need, or unsure of what has to be done. Opportunities for sexual exploitation may arise as a result of the unequal power dynamics in the doctor-patient relationship, especially during physical examinations.

The aforementioned Task Force established several additional rules, one of which is that the physician should make sure that the doctor-patient relationship is not used for sex, business, social, or personal advantage. The petitioner-doctor allegedly broke all of the aforementioned. Consequently, at the very least, an investigation should be allowed to continue. Since the petition is not valid, it is denied. It is stated unequivocally that the conclusions drawn are intended solely to evaluate the petitioner’s case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and have no legal force or effect on any inquiry or actions taken against the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

The main issues in Dr. Chethan Naidu S v. State of Karnataka are the validity of the formal complaint against the petitioner and the veracity of the claims of professional misconduct. The case emphasizes how crucial it is to discern between true cases of medical malpractice and unfounded allegations. The main thrust of Dr. Naidu’s defense is that the FIR is baseless and that the facts do not support the claims of misbehavior. This is a critical issue since such accusations can potentially seriously harm medical professionals’ careers and reputations.

The case also discusses the legal criteria for criminal responsibility in cases of medical negligence as well as the norms of medical conduct. To prevent doctors from being unfairly punished based on baseless allegations, it is imperative to provide unambiguous proof of injury or egregious carelessness prior to pursuing criminal charges.

To sum up, the verdict in this case will have a big impact on the medical community since it will clarify how accusations of medical malpractice should be handled in court trials. The Court must carefully consider the material to decide whether the FIR should be quashed or whether the subject merits more inquiry. The ruling will establish a standard for striking a balance between healthcare providers’ professional protection and legal accountability.