Allegations of harassment at PGI raise questions about compliance with the POSH Act | Chandigarh News

Chandigarh: The case regarding allegations of inappropriate behavior by a PGI doctor towards a female patient has raised concerns over the implementation of the Sexual harassment Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Rehabilitation) Act, 2013.
A 38-year-old woman from Punjab visited the urology OPD at BGA for the treatment of kidney stones. She alleged that the assistant professor in the urology department behaved indecently towards her during the examination. The patient alleged that she was examined alone in a closed room without the presence of a female attendant and that the doctor touched her inappropriately. She alleged that her sister-in-law was also denied access to the room during the investigation.
In response to the complaint, PGI has constituted a five-member committee headed by Prof. Vanita Jain, head of the department of gynecology, to look into the matter. However, a few officials have raised concerns over the formation of this committee, indicating that the case should have been registered under the law POSH Actwhich is the formation of a Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in accordance with its provisions.
The POSH Act aims to provide a safe working environment for women, free from sexual harassment. Under Section 2(a) of the Act, any aggrieved woman, whether employed or self-employed, who claims to have been the victim of any form of sexual harassment by a man in the workplace, can file a complaint with the ICC within three months, established by the organization. Meanwhile, PGI’s official spokesperson said the committee was working expeditiously on the matter and would submit a report to the competent authority in due course. Still, concerns have been raised about the lack of deadlines for the commission’s investigation.
The POSH law prescribes specific timelines for the ICC to complete its investigation and make recommendations. Sources said the accused doctor’s statement has not yet been recorded by the committee, while the patient’s statement was recorded on September 27. The matter was brought to the attention of the BGA director PGI on September 7, while a committee was formed on September 16. .

We have also recently published the following articles