She denied changing her medical opinion on the condition of the four-year-old victim. Dr Jain serves as the Principal Director and Head of Department (Paediatrics) at Max Healthcare, Gurugram. She filed the affidavit after the Court issued her a show-cause notice.
Gurugram doctor affidavit in Supreme Court
In her affidavit, Dr Jain denied altering her medical opinion in any manner. She also said no one had influenced her to do so. According to her, any submission before the Court suggesting otherwise was incorrect.
The issue surfaced during an earlier hearing. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the victim and her parents. He argued that the doctor had completely changed her opinion one and a half months after preparing the initial case sheet. He pointed out that, around that time, the doctor wrote to the concerned SHO/Inspector and stated entirely different things. Rohatgi questioned what had prompted her to write to the SHO after that gap. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant called it “shameful for a doctor” and sought her explanation.
In response, Dr Jain explained that the child’s parents had brought her to the hospital on February 2 through a pre-booked appointment. Dr Jain first spoke to the victim’s mother, who narrated the incident. She later interacted with the child and prepared a case sheet on that basis. According to the affidavit, the child said that the housemaid had taken her in an auto-rickshaw to a “dirty place.” There, a grown man kissed her cheeks, pinched her ear, and slapped her stomach. The child also said that she had remained frightened for the previous fifteen days and had spoken about monsters.
Dr Jain further said that she physically examined the child in the presence of her mother. During that examination, she found no obvious injury on the body. She also found the private areas normal. The doctor advised counselling by a clinical psychologist. She further suggested preparation of a Medico Legal Case report to inform the police. A different set of doctors prepared the MLC, after which the victim left the hospital. Dr Jain added that neither the child nor her parents visited her again.
Dr Jain also stated that, five days after she interacted with the victim, a lady officer came to meet her. The officer introduced herself as the Investigating Officer. Based on the case sheet, she prepared a statement in her own handwriting and language. Dr Jain signed that statement. However, the officer did not give her a copy. Later, forty-seven days after Dr Jain met the child, two police officers visited her. They asked about the consultation she had given to the victim and her parents. On that occasion, Dr Jain said she recounted the events to the best of her memory. She added that the report prepared then remained materially and factually the same as the earlier case sheet.
Gurugram child rape case doctor denies changing opinion
Dr Jain reiterated in her affidavit that she had never changed the medical opinion reflected in the case sheet. She also specifically denied that anyone had ever tried to compel her to alter that opinion.
More specifically, Dr Jain asserted that she had remained consistent on several points every time. She said the victim had described being taken out of the society in an auto-rickshaw to a dirty house or room. She also maintained that a man kissed the child on the cheek, touched her cheek, pinched her ears, and hit her abdomen or stomach three times with his hand. Dr Jain further said that the victim had received a green lollipop with snakes on it. She also consistently stated that no obvious injury appeared on the child’s body. According to her, the vulva was clean and the anal area was normal. Finally, she said she had directed initiation of the statutory MLC and advised counselling.
The matter arises from a writ petition that the victim-child’s parents filed. They sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team. They said the Haryana Police had conducted an unsatisfactory probe. On March 23, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the way the Haryana Police handled the case. It described the investigation as “shocking” and insensitive. The Court also took serious note of the complaint that a Judicial Magistrate recorded the victim’s statement close to the accused persons.
Two days later, the Court again came down heavily on the Haryana Police. It said the police had derailed the investigation. The Court then constituted a Special Investigation Team to take over the probe. It believed that the local police had invoked the lesser offence of aggravated sexual assault in the FIR instead of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The Court also directed the authorities to disassociate the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, and the Investigating Officer from the probe. Further, it issued notice to the delinquent police officers to show cause why disciplinary action should not follow. It also asked Dr Jain to explain why she had allegedly changed the medical report prepared after examining the child.
Advocate-on-Record Sumeer Sodhi filed the affidavit for Dr Jain.
The case is titled XXX v. State of Haryana, W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026.
Also read: Supreme Court patriarchy ruling: Life term upheld
