The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the “best person or body" to assist the judicial system in determining whether medical negligence has been committed is experts in the field. The assertion came as the Bench set aside a Gurugram court order summoning a doctor to face trial under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on causing death by negligence. Among other things, the court held that the court proceeded without adhering to its own earlier direction to obtain an expert opinion from PGIMER at Chandigarh.
Allowing the doctor’s petition, Justice Surya Partap Singh held that the impugned summoning order was not sustainable in its present form and directed the trial court to first procure the expert report from the PGIMER, Chandigarh, consider it along with the material already on record, and then pass a fresh order.
The case arose out of allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of the complainant’s sister. Challenging the summoning order, the doctor contended that he was being unnecessarily harassed despite a District Medical Negligence Board having already concluded that he could not be held negligent.
Examining the matter, Justice Surya Partap Singh noted that a District Medical Negligence Board constituted by Gurugram Chief Medical Officer, and comprising six doctors, including specialists, had submitted its report on February 5, 2024. The Board was of the opinion that the doctor could not be held negligent.
Justice Surya Partap Singh observed expert medical bodies were best equipped to assist courts in determining whether negligence had, in fact, been committed in matters involving allegations of medical negligence. “The best person/body to help the judicial system for arriving at a conclusion, as to whether medical negligence has been committed or not, is the body of experts in the field,” the court observed.
Justice Surya Partap Singh also took note of the fact that the complainant had challenged the Board’s findings by filing a criminal complaint against the Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon and the six Board members. However, the complaint was dismissed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, on June 3, 2025. The court observed that the dismissal of the complaint led to the conclusion that, as of now, there was no question mark over the validity of the findings recorded by the Medical Board in its report.
Justice Singh added that the trial court had earlier directed that an expert report be obtained from the PGIMER, Chandigarh, but proceeded to pass the summoning order without waiting for the report.
“In my opinion, the 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. If there was any difficulty in procuring the report of PGI Chandigarh as ordered on September 28, 2023, the proper course available to the trial Court was to recall the order by giving a justification and then proceed further with the complaint. But such procedure was not adopted by the learned trial Court,” Justice Surya Partap Singh added.
