Trial Court Can't Summon Doctor In Medical Negligence Case Without Awaiting Expert Opinion It Sought: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a summoning order issued against a doctor in a criminal complaint alleging medical negligence, holding that the trial court acted perversely in proceeding without awaiting an expert opinion which it had itself directed to be obtained.

Justice Surya Pratap Singh noted, "it abundantly clear that there was a direction by the learned trial Court to seek expert report, to be submitted by the expert doctors of PGI Chandigarh, but without waiting for the above-mentioned report, the summoning order has been passed. In my opinion, the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the learned trial Court is in violation of its own direction, and therefore, perverse and contrary to the settled norms of judicial discipline."

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order passed by a Gurugram trial court under Section 304-A IPC.

The complaint was filed by the brother of a 22-year-old woman who died on January 21, 2023, allegedly due to medical negligence during treatment at the petitioner doctor's hospital. It was alleged that the patient developed complications following administration of an injection, and despite being shifted to another hospital, she was declared dead.

The complainant alleged gross negligence and sought prosecution of the doctor under multiple IPC provisions. The trial court, after recording preliminary evidence, summoned the doctor to face trial under Section 304-A IPC.

The petitioner argued that the summoning order was a misuse of process, highlighting that a District Medical Negligence Board comprising six doctors had already examined the matter and categorically opined that no negligence could be attributed to the doctor.

It was further contended that the trial court had itself directed that a second expert opinion be obtained from PGI Chandigarh. However, without waiting for the said report, the trial court proceeded to summon the petitioner, rendering the order unsustainable.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab to argue that criminal prosecution in medical negligence cases requires credible expert opinion.

The High Court noted that while there were specific allegations of negligence, the role of expert medical opinion is crucial in such cases.

The Court emphasized that the District Medical Negligence Board had given a clear opinion exonerating the petitioner. The trial court had consciously directed obtaining a second opinion from PGI Chandigarh.

Despite this, the trial court proceeded to pass the summoning order without awaiting the expert report.

Terming this approach flawed, the Court observed that once a court deems expert opinion necessary, it must adhere to its own direction or formally recall it before proceeding.

“The procedure adopted by the trial court is in violation of its own direction, and therefore, perverse and contrary to settled norms of judicial discipline,” the Court held.

The Court further observed that if there were difficulties in procuring the PGI report, the trial court ought to have recalled its earlier order with reasons instead of bypassing it.

Holding the summoning order to be unsustainable, the Court set it aside and directed the trial court to first obtain the expert opinion from PGI Chandigarh, consider it along with the existing material, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Nishant Bharihoke, Advocate & Mr. Rujhan Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: ROHIT LALIT v. SOURABH CHABBRA

Click here to read order