Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 166B
repealedPunishment for non treatment of victim
Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section1 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
Why this exists
This section was inserted into the IPC in 2013, in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case (Nirbhaya case), which exposed how victims of sexual violence and acid attacks were sometimes turned away from hospitals or delayed in receiving urgent care because of procedural or financial hurdles. Parliament, through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, added Section 357C to the CrPC (mandating free first-aid or medical treatment to such victims by every hospital) and paired it with Section 166B IPC to give that mandate teeth by criminalising non-compliance by the person in charge of a hospital.
How courts read it
There is no widely reported landmark Supreme Court judgment specifically interpreting Section 166B in isolation, but courts have repeatedly emphasized, in cases involving acid attack and rape survivors, that Section 357C CrPC read with Section 166B IPC creates a binding legal duty on hospitals to provide immediate free treatment, and have directed strict compliance and awareness among hospital staff and police.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only government hospitals must follow this rule.
Fact: The law applies equally to private hospitals and nursing homes, not just those run by the Central or State Government or local bodies. - Myth: Hospitals can ask for payment or police paperwork before treating such victims.
Fact: Under Section 357C CrPC, treatment must be given immediately and free of cost, without waiting for police formalities or payment.