Gurugram Child Rape Case : Max Hospital Doctor Gives Explanation To Supreme Court, Denies Changing Medical Opinion

In the rape case of a 4-year old minor girl from Gurugram, a doctor of Max Hospital, who was issued a show-cause notice, recently submitted before the Supreme Court that she did not change her medical opinion with regard to the child's condition.

Dr Babita Jain, Principal Director and Head of Department (Paediatrics), Max Healthcare, Gurugram, who interacted with the 4-year old victim and prepared her case sheet, categorically denied having been influenced to change her medical opinion.

"I have not changed my medical opinion in any manner through report dated...Any submission to the contrary given by any party to the present case is incorrect", she said in her affidavit.

For context, during an earlier hearing of the matter, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for the victim/her parents) had alleged that the Max Hospital doctor completely changed her opinion 1.5 months after drawing up the initial case sheet. It was highlighted that 1.5 months after the initial report, the doctor addressed a letter to the concerned SHO/Inspector, stating completely different things. Rohatgi questioned as to what could have prompted the doctor to address a letter to the SHO 1.5 months later. "Shameful for a doctor", CJI Surya Kant had remarked in response, calling for her explanation.

Pursuant to that, Dr Jain filed an affidavit explaining that the victim's parents had brought her to the hospital on February 2 upon making a pre-booked appointment. Dr Jain first interacted with the victim's mother, who narrated the incident. Later, she interacted with the victim and prepared a case sheet based on the same.

The child had mentioned that the house-maid had taken her in an auto-rickshaw to a "dirty place" where a grown-up man had kissed her on her cheeks, pinched her ear, and slapped her stomach. She said that she was frightened for the last 15 days and was talking of monsters.

The doctor further mention that on physical examination of the victim, in the presence of her mother, no obvious injury was found on the body and the private areas were normal. The doctor advised counselling by a clinical psychologist, suggested the preparation of a Medico Legal Case report to inform the police. The MLC was done by a different set of doctors and the victim was discharged. Thereafter, neither she nor her parents visited Dr Jain again.

It was added that 5 days after the interaction with the victim, a lady officer, who introduced herself as the case Investigating Officer, came to see Dr Jain and prepared a statement (in her own handwriting and language) based on the case sheet. The same was signed by Dr Jain, but a copy was not provided to her.

Subsequently, 47 days after the interaction with the victim, Dr Jain was visited by 2 police officers who enquired about the consultancy to the victim and her parents. On this occasion, Dr Jain submitted that she recounted the events to the best of her memory and the report prepared was materially and factually the same as the case sheet drawn earlier.

"I therefore state that at no point of time is there any change of medical opinion of the Deponent vis-a-vis the Case Sheet dated...I specifically deny that at any occasion there was any attempt by anyone to compel the Deponent to change her Medical opinion in any manner whatsoever", the affidavit stated.

More specifically, Dr Jain asserted that she has been consistent about the following aspects on every occasion:

- victim being taken out of the society in an auto to a dirty house/room,

- a man kissing her on the cheek, touching her on the cheek, pinching her ears and hitting her on the abdomen/stomach with his hand thrice,

- the victim being given a lollipop, which was green in color and had snakes on it,

- no obvious injury being present on the body of the victim, her vulva being clean and anal area being normal,

- statutory MLC being directed to be initiated by her (Dr Jain) and the victim being advised counselling.

To recap, the Court is seized of a writ petition filed by the parents of the victim-child seeking investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team on the ground that the investigation by the Haryana police was unsatisfactory.

On March 23, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the Haryana Police handled the investigation, terming the conduct of the probe "shocking" and insensitive. The Court also took serious note of the complaint that the Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the victim in close proximity to the accused persons.

Two days later, the Court came down heavily on the Haryana police for derailing the investigation in the case and constituted a Special Investigation Team to take over the investigation. The Court was of the view that the local police invoked the lesser offence of aggravated sexual assault, instead of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, in the FIR.

The Commissioner of Police, Gurugram and the investigating officer were directed to be disassociated from the probe. Further, the Court issued notice to the delinquent police officers to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against them, and to Dr Jain, to explain the reasons for changing the medical report prepared after examining the victim.

The affidavit was filed through AoR Sumeer Sodhi.

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026