Ahmedabad Nurse Fined Rs. 10000 For Falsely Accusing Doctor Of Molestation

OVERVIEW 

A nurse, currently in probation at the Community Health Care (CHC), Suigam in Banaskantha District has been penalised with Rs. 10,000 for falsely accusing one 31-year-old doctor, Dr. Ashok Chaudhary, who is the in-charge superintendent at the facility, thereby causing him “mental, physical and social harassment.” The Court has also prescribed the offender jail for 30 days in case she fails to pay such compensation to the doctor.

The police have also been instructed by the court to lodge an FIR against the nurse for instituting false prosecution against the doctor.

"The complainant has misused the law for protection of women and it's necessary to stop such people," such judicial court of Ahmedabad said.

BACKGROUND 

The complaint submitted by the nurse against the doctor who was accused of molesting her stated that the doctor, who is also the in-charge superintendent of the facility, stated that he would allegedly intimidate her using his superior position. It further stated that on the night of December 12, 2019, such doctor not only abused her verbally, but had also touched her inappropriately.

As the case proceeded, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the nurse allowed her relatives to sleep in the Community Health Care premises. The in-charge superintendent, Dr. Chaudhary, on gaining such knowledge, strictly forbade it. Thus, there was a personal grudge that the nurse was holding against the doctor which fuelled her to lodge such a false complaint against him.

She also seemed to be interested in seeking a transfer to her native place, and such allegations of molestations against the in-charge superintendent of the current facility she is on probation in would strengthen her cause of securing such a transfer.

It was also revealed during the proceeding that such nurse would direct the patients to seek health care from private hospitals and would constantly dissuade them from seeking treatment from public hospitals such as the facility she was posted at. She misguided them enlisting the lack of treatment facilities and equipment in the public health care departments.

FURTHER DETAILS 

The court, after careful consideration of the case in hand was of the opinion that the nurse had lodged such a false complaint in order to teach a lesson to her superior for forbidding her relatives to sleep at the Community Health Care premises. The nurse might also have come up with such complaint so that Dr. Chaudhary could not report her activities to the seniors which would put her employment at risk.

The court further referred to a judgement of the Madras High Court which termed such gross misuse of the laws and relevant amendments legislated for the protection of women, by women as “Legal terrorism” since the falsely accused would be harassed socially, mentally and physically, for an offence they did not commit.

The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Suigam, Atul Kumar, observed that “it appears that the complainant has misused the law for the protection of women and it is necessary to stop such people from misusing the law."

"The complainant's act is dangerous for social health," stated the court while passing the order.

CONCLUSION 

The court after finding the allegations of molestation against the doctors to be false, has imposed a compensation of Rs. 10,000 payable to the doctor for the harassments that he had to endure. On default of payment of such compensation, she will have to serve a period of 30 days of imprisonment.

The Court has also instructed the Commissioner of Health to conduct a departmental inquiry against the nurse to account for her competence for the service that is to be provided by her, considering the statement of the witnesses which state that such nurse would direct the patients and their families to go to private facilities to seek treatment since the public health-care system lacked such amenities. Actions are to be taken against such proven allegations accordingly. The concerned authority has been ordered to submit their departmental inquiry report within 30 days.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING SUCH FALSE COMPLAINT LODGED TO SEEK PERSONAL REVENGE? DO YOU THINK SUCH INSTANCES REDUCE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VALID CASES? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!