After a nudge from the Supreme Court, two private hospitals in Ghaziabad agreed to pay compensation to the family of a four-year-old girl who died after allegedly being denied timely medical treatment following a brutal rape. The Court also indicated that it would frame guidelines to ensure prompt medical care for victims of sexual assault and other medical emergencies.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the directions while hearing the suo motu case in which it had earlier constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder of the child and had expressed concern over the conduct of the Uttar Pradesh authorities as well as the refusal of two private hospitals to admit and treat her.

As the bench was proposing to direct the payment of compensation, the hospitals agreed to voluntarily pay the sums. The order therefore recorded that St. Joseph Mariam Hospital, Ghaziabad, would pay ₹10 lakh to the victim's family, while the second hospital agreed to pay ₹2 lakh. The amounts are to be paid through demand drafts within four weeks.

"We are further inclined to issue some guidelines to ensure timely medical care and proper handling of such cases," the Bench observed in its order.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for the girl's parents, submitted that the SIT report placed before the Bench painted a "damning" picture of the hospitals' conduct.

"It is a clear case of negligence on the part of the hospitals. The first hospital had the facility of calling doctors, but they neither called them nor informed anyone and simply decided to pass on the patient to the next hospital. The next hospital was a multispeciality hospital with innumerable departments. They could have treated the child. The child would have been alive," Hariharan argued. He also criticised the conduct of the police, alleging that officers failed to faithfully record the informant's statement. He said that the FIR, which was registered after a delay of 30 hours, only invoked the offence of murder without including the rape offence.

"The matters are dealt with in such an insensitive manner that it multiplies the victimisation. Your Lordships intervened in this case, but there are thousands of cases where nothing happens," he submitted.

Hariharan further urged the Court to issue directions applicable to medical institutions across the country.

"There should be immediate reporting. There should be no situation where a person is allowed to leave without treatment. If you have the ability to treat and still refuse on such lame excuses, it is a ridiculous situation," he said.

The Bench responded that it intended to issue "positive directions" and asked Hariharan to suggest measures that could bridge the gap between the statutory framework and its implementation on the ground.

The CJI said that the hospitals have to pay compensation and asked them how much they are willing to pay. Senior Advocate K Babu, for the St Joseph's Hospital, submitted that it was a charitable institution run by missionaries, and claimed that it was not a multi-speciality hospital. The counsel for the other hospital submitted that theirs was a small nursing home with one doctor, and the child was given whatever treatment was possible there, before referring to a bigger centre.

Justice Bagchi observed that the child's life could have been saved had proper treatment been given during the crucial hours after the crime. "This was a four-year-old girl who had suffered such a traumatic attack. The bare minimum which could have been administered was some blood. The situation was so critical and yet you packed her off. The report says that in emergency situations doctors could be called to attend. They did not even try that," the Judge said.

"This four-year-old girl suffered a traumatic attack. She was suffering for five hours," Hariharan submitted.

The Counsel appearing for the hospitals requested that the payment be treated as a voluntary contribution rather than compensation, stating that the issue could arise during any future criminal prosecution.

Case Title : XXX v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026