Mumbai: Stating that a 28-year-old doctor exploited the family of a COVID patient when they were running pillar to post for a bed, a sessions court early this month rejected the relief of pre-arrest bail.
Additional Sessions Judge BV Wagh said in his order that a survey of the investigation papers suggested the well-discriminable role of the applicant in extracting money by making false representation in the hour of need. “He exploited the patient when they were running pillar to post for availing bed facility for treatment,” the court noted, adding that the applicant being a doctor has cashed in on the moment in the lure of illegal enrichment in the pandemic situation.
In strong observations, Judge Wagh called the offence as one against society, where a few can knock the door of justice and most do not reach. “A common person poses their faith on a medical practitioner and in hour of need they pay any amount by raising loan,” the court said. It added that when COVID treatment is free in a government hospital where the informant’s father was admitted, still the applicant has asked the patient for payment.
The complainant Shraddha Sawant and her relatives were looking for a bed for her father whose condition had deteriorated in April, when the second wave of the virus was at its peak. They had already visited three hospitals in search of a bed. In the fourth hospital they visited in their desperate attempt, Sai Hospital in Antop Hill, they met Dr. Abdul Gaffar Khan. As per the complaint, he allegedly promised to arrange a bed at Global Hospital in Thane and asked for Rs 1 lakh for arranging it. They promptly made a payment of Rs 10,000 to him through PayTM and then made the remaining payment of Rs 90,000 after reaching the hospital. It is then that they realized that the hospital was a government one and that COVID treatment there was free of cost. Eventually, they lodged a complaint of cheating.
The doctor had claimed in his plea that he was falsely implicated. Opposing the relief, the Antop Hill police station had told the court that there was evidence of bank transactions which show he had accepted the amount.
