ARUN P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2022-6-177
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on June 20,2022

Arun P. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J. - (1.)Attacks against doctors and medical institutions have been on an unprecedented rise in the last decade and a half. Mindful of the pernicious effect of such attacks, Kerala became the pioneer in enacting a law on violence against doctors. The Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 (for short 'the Healthcare Act') was enacted to curb the evil of such violence. The definition of the word 'violence' in the statute is clearly indicative of the purpose behind the Act. The preamble to the aforementioned Act states that it is enacted to prohibit violence against healthcare service persons and to prevent damage and loss to property in healthcare service institutions.
(2.)Petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully restrained a doctor (the defacto complainant) on 12/4/2022 and threatened her while she was on her way from the doctor's room to the casualty of the hospital, thereby causing obstruction to her official duty and committing the offences under Sec. 341, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and sec. 3 and 4(1) of the Healthcare Act.
(3.)In this application for pre-arrest bail, petitioner pleads that he had met with a motor vehicle accident on 10/4/2022 and though there were no external injuries, due to pain in his body, he went to the Taluk Hospital, Pattambi on 12/4/2022 and on consultation with the casualty Doctor, he was advised to take an X-ray of his spine. Despite waiting for more than 1' hours, since his X-ray was not taken, he approached the Public Relations Officer of the hospital, who directed the petitioner to meet the duty Doctor at casualty. Due to the pain, petitioner could not wait further and therefore he met the defacto complainant and apprised her about the painful condition. However, unmindful of petitioner's condition, defacto complainant is alleged to have reacted in a hostile manner and threatened not to treat him and later petitioner learnt that a complaint was filed against him, resulting in the registration of the present crime. Thus it was contended that petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.