The panel declared that hospitals are "required to preserve the life of the victim and for her recovery." It recommended that the victim first see a professional counselor, followed by a doctor and the police.

"It says that treatment has to be over and above everything. It ropes in the private sector, in terms of making them accountable, and telling them it is their obligation to provide treatment," Deosthali said.

In cases of sexual assault, some doctors refuse to treat patients. The report proposes making this a punishable offense.

"In our opinion, the duty of the medical profession to extend unqualified services to victims of such heinous offenses should be duly publicized and medical professionals and hospitals who abstain from performing the same ought to be punished in accordance with law," the commission stated.

Challenges remain with the sexual assault exam that weren't mentioned in the report, though, Deosthali said.

During medical exams, doctors take note of the physical build and nourishment of the woman. Even among medical professionals, there are notions that a healthy woman would have been able to fight back her attackers, said Reddy, who has conducted sexual assault medical exams.

The notion is perpetuated in forensic medical textbooks, Deosthali said.

If a sexual assault survivor lacks obvious signs of injury, this may bias the case, because there is such an emphasis on finding injuries during the exam, Reddy said.

"It's not necessary to have injuries in sexual assault," he said. "The absence of injury doesn't mean she has consented."

Rape cases can lack obvious signs of harm, because the victim could have been unconscious, intoxicated or the assailant could have used lubrication.

The government-appointed panel warned against relying heavily on "the marks of struggle." It cited a law commission that said: "The Indian law of evidence does not, in general, lay down that a particular species of evidence should be insisted upon any proof or disproof of a particular fact."