Gauhati High Court Upholds Doctor’s Conviction, Rules Groping Breasts Is Not Part of Routine Gynaecological Examination
In a significant judgment reinforcing patient rights and medical ethics, the Gauhati High Court has held that groping or squeezing a patient’s breasts cannot be justified as part of a routine gynaecological examination for menstrual problems. Upholding the conviction of a doctor for outraging a woman’s modesty, the Court observed that such conduct was “absurd” and fell far outside the scope of legitimate medical practice.
Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund rejected the doctor’s argument that touching the patient’s breasts formed part of a standard examination for irregular menstruation. The Court clarified that while a gynaecologist may examine the abdomen or pelvic region depending on the patient’s symptoms, there was no medical necessity to squeeze or grope the patient’s breasts in the circumstances of the case. The Bench emphasized that the victim was not required to unbutton her blouse merely because she had complained of irregular menstrual periods.
The case arose from an incident in which the patient alleged that the doctor, during a consultation for irregular periods, unbuttoned her blouse, repeatedly groped her breasts despite her protests, touched her private parts and bit her lips while assuring her that his actions were part of the examination. She immediately raised an alarm, following which an FIR was lodged. The trial court convicted the doctor under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of a woman, and the conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Sessions Court.
While hearing the doctor’s revision petition, the High Court carefully examined the evidence and found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Bench held that the victim’s testimony remained consistent on the material aspects of the incident and that minor discrepancies in witness statements were natural and did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that the credible testimony of a victim can, by itself, be sufficient to sustain a conviction in offences involving sexual assault or outraging modesty.
The judgment also stressed that the essence of an offence under Section 354 IPC lies in the accused’s intention and conduct. According to the Court, the acts attributed to the doctor clearly demonstrated sexual intent rather than any bona fide medical purpose. The Bench observed that every woman possesses a legally protected sense of modesty, and any act of criminal force intended to violate that dignity attracts penal consequences.
Although the High Court upheld the finding of guilt, it modified the sentence in view of the doctor’s advanced age. While maintaining the conviction under Section 354 IPC, the Court reduced the custodial sentence and imposed a monetary penalty instead, balancing the circumstances of the case without diluting the finding that the misconduct constituted a criminal offence.
The ruling is being viewed as an important reaffirmation of the legal and ethical boundaries governing medical examinations. It underscores that professional status cannot shield inappropriate conduct, and that any physical examination must be medically necessary, professionally justified and conducted with the patient’s informed consent and dignity. Legal experts believe the decision strengthens accountability in the healthcare system while reinforcing judicial protection for patients against sexual misconduct disguised as medical treatment.
