Kerala High Court Rejects Doctors' Challenge To Expert Panel Opinion On Medical Negligence; Says It's Only Evidence, Not Verdict

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K was considering two doctors' writ appeal challenging a Single Judge order that refused to interfere with an expert panel's report expressing a prima facie opinion of gross medical negligence.

The appeal arose from the death of a 10-year-old girl, Megha, who was admitted to Christian Mission Hospital, Pandalam, in August 2010 with complaints of abdominal pain and vomiting. She was administered intravenous medication shortly after admission, following which her condition deteriorated rapidly. She was shifted to the ICU and later referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Kochi, where she died. The post-mortem attributed the cause of death to choking.

Following a complaint lodged by the child's father, the police registered a criminal case alleging medical negligence. As part of the investigation, the matter was referred to the District level Expert Panel and subsequently to the State Level Apex Body constituted under a 2008 Government Circular that established a two-tier expert scrutiny mechanism for complaints against doctors.

Although the Apex Body had earlier submitted reports in 2016 and 2018 that exonerated the doctors, those reports were set aside in earlier proceedings before the High Court. Pursuant to fresh directions issued by the Court, the Apex Body reconsidered the matter and, in 2022, opined that there was prima facie material indicating gross negligence. The doctors challenged this report through a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the present appeal.

The appellants argued that the Apex Body's report was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1], which distinguishes criminal negligence from mere medical error or civil negligence.

It was contended that criminal prosecution against doctors requires a credible and independent medical opinion from a competent expert and argued that the State Apex Body lacked specialists in paediatrics, making it incompetent to render an opinion in the case.

The Court held that the State's expert panel mechanism was created precisely to implement the safeguards envisaged by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew against arbitrary prosecution of medical professionals.

The Court clarified that the expert panel's report is only in the nature of scientific evidence that may assist the investigating agency and, if relied upon during trial, can be tested through cross-examination. It does not constitute a judicial determination of guilt or bind the criminal court.

“The views expressed by the Expert Panels concerned are only in the nature of expert evidence led by the prosecution, the veracity of which can be tested in cross-examination in a trial where it is relied upon 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 in a manner that is prejudicial to them,” the Court held.

The Court also found no merit in the challenge to the composition of the Apex Body. It noted that the doctors had accepted the same body's constitution when its earlier reports were favourable to them and questioned it only after receiving an adverse opinion. The Court found no material casting doubt on the panel's competence to provide medico-legal views.

Expressing concern over the prolonged pendency of the matter, the Court noted that although the incident occurred in 2010, the criminal trial had still not commenced after sixteen years. It observed that continued delay would erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Court emphasised that the doctors retain all legal remedies available in the criminal proceedings, including seeking discharge or acquittal before the trial court.

“It is a cardinal aspect of the rule of law that nobody is above the law and everybody is equal before the law. Those who swear by the Hippocratic oath at the time of entering the noble profession of Medicine, cannot ignore or avoid the commitment expected of them in the practice of medicine by the laws of our country.” Court concluded

The Court thus dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Dr. Reni Philip and Anr. v Suvarnarajendran and Ors.

Case No: W.A. 1417/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 423

Counsel for Appellant: S. Gopakumar Nair (Sr.), S. Prasanth, Helen P.A, Athul Roy

Counsel for Respondents: Joseph P. Alex, Jacob P. Alex, Manu Sankar P, Amal Amir Ali, T.P. Sajid

Click Here To Read/Download Order