'Molestation': Couple claim compensation from doctor

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE, AUG. 24. After an eight-year legal battle, a City- based couple, Mr. T. Murthy and Ms. Anitha Murthy, have now sought Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation from a doctor who allegedly molested Ms. Anitha.

They addressed presspersons here on Friday -- exactly eight years after they lodged a complaint with the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) against Dr. K.S. Sathyakumar.

In the complaint, Mr. Murthy alleged that Dr. Sathyakumar molested Ms. Anitha on the pretext of conducting a physical examination. At the time, the doctor reportedly did not have a female attendant in the room.

The incident allegedly occurred when Mr. Murthy went to Dr. Sathyakumar for treatment of an infection. ``He told me that I had venereal disease, and that I had probably passed it on to my wife. But after examining her, he told her that she had given the disease to me,'' he told presspersons. That was the time the alleged molestation occurred.

``Disturbed by the doctor's statement, I consulted two registered medical practitioners, and they told me that I did not have VD,'' Mr. Murthy aid.

According to him, the KMC took up their case after the High Court directed it to do so. The KMC order on March 8, 1999, said Dr. Sathyakumar had ``...erred in not following the established practice of having female attendants (in the room) while examining a female patient...''. But the KMC was ``not convinced about the ``molestation episode'', and only issued a warning under the KMC Act to the doctor. It also directed that no female patient be treated/examined without a female attendant.

Dissatisfied by the verdict, Mr. Murthy filed an appeal before the High Court. It was dismissed. Dr. Sathyakumar also filed a petition disputing the KMC order. That too was reportedly dismissed.

``When we began our fight in 1993, we had filed a police complaint with the Cubbon Park police station (the jurisdictional station).'' Though a criminal case under Section 354 of the IPC was instituted, further proceedings were stopped. This led Mr. Murthy to file a revision petition with the Principal City Sessions Judge. The judge set aside the earlier order, and directed the Prosecution to dispose of the case in accordance with the law.

But Dr. Sathyakumar filed a counter appeal, and on February 20, this year, the Sessions Judge order was set aside.

Special Leave Petition: Later, however, a Government Order (GO) dated June 28 this year granted Mr. Murthy permission to file a Special Leave Petition against Dr. Sathyakumar.

On July 23, Mr. Murthy approached the State Consumer Forum. The forum has issued a notice to Dr. Sathyakumar asking him to appear before it on November 6. ``We are seeking Rs. 5-lakh compensation for the gross injustice and mental agony we have suffered,'' Mr. Murthy said.

He and Ms. Anitha said that their fight for justice had led to their social ostracism. Even their immediate family shied away from the ``social stigma''. Ms. Anitha described it as a ``daily battle'. Their two children -- Somnath (10) and Niveditha (5) -- were too small to understand, she explained.

They added that they were unwilling to give up the fight, and that they would wait to see justice prevail.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : 'King of nuts' languishing due to fall in demand
Next     : Khata camps: Site owners seek time