Medical Expert Panel Report Is Only Evidence, Not Final Finding in Negligence Case: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the opinion of a government-appointed medical expert panel investigating allegations of medical negligence is only expert evidence and cannot be treated as a final finding of guilt. Dismissing a writ appeal filed by two doctors, the Division Bench held that such reports merely assist the investigating agency and the criminal court remains free to independently assess the evidence during trial.

Background of the Case

The appeal challenged a Single Judge's decision refusing to interfere with a report submitted by the State Level Apex Body constituted to investigate complaints against doctors.

The dispute arose from the treatment of a 10-year-old girl who was admitted to a hospital in Pandalam in August 2010 with abdominal pain and vomiting. After receiving intravenous medication, her condition deteriorated and she was shifted to another hospital for advanced treatment. She later died while undergoing treatment, and the post-mortem recorded the cause of death as "choking." Following a complaint, the police registered a criminal case alleging medical negligence and sought the opinion of the expert panels constituted by the State Government.

Earlier reports of the State Level Apex Body had not found material suggesting criminal negligence. Those reports, however, were set aside in earlier proceedings, following which the High Court directed the panel to reconsider the matter. The fresh report expressed a prima facie opinion of gross negligence, prompting the doctors to approach the High Court.

Court's Observations

The Division Bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. agreed with the Single Judge that the expert panel's report was only an opinion intended to aid the investigation.

The Bench observed,

"The views expressed by the Expert Panels concerned are only in the nature of expert evidence led by the prosecution. The opinion of the Expert Panel cannot, by itself, be seen as a finding or as an irrebuttable fact established against the appellants."

The Court explained that the two-tier expert panel system was introduced following the Supreme Court's decision in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab to prevent arbitrary criminal action against doctors. It noted that the investigating officer must independently examine the material collected and that the criminal court will ultimately decide the issue after evaluating all the evidence, including any challenge to the expert opinion during trial.

The Bench also rejected the contention that the expert panel lacked specialists in the relevant branch of medicine. It pointed out that the doctors had accepted the panel's constitution when earlier reports were in their favour and questioned it only after the latest report went against them. The Court found no material to doubt the panel's competence to offer its medico-legal opinion.

Decision

The High Court noted that the incident occurred in 2010 and that the criminal trial had still not commenced after sixteen years. It observed that prolonged delays undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The Bench clarified that the doctors remain free to seek discharge or acquittal before the criminal court and to challenge the expert opinion during trial.

Emphasising that no one is above the rule of law, the Court dismissed the writ appeal.