Investigating Officer Not Obliged To Exclusively Act On Expert's Opinion While Investigating Medical Negligence Cases: Kerala High Court

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the investigating office could take additional expert opinion from any other source if he wishes to do so to complete the investigation.

“ The Doctors cannot have any objection against the processes now put in place by the Government of Kerala through their various orders…..even going by the said order, it does not make it obliged on the Investigating Officer to act exclusively as per the views of the 'Expert Panel/Apex Body', but, on the contrary, enjoins him to continue the investigation using other expert opinion, if required, thus culminating it as per law, before the competent Court. It is eventually the Court which takes the final call either way because, even if the Investigating Officer is to refer the complaint against a Doctor, the complainant would nevertheless obtain the right to file a 'private complaint' or 'protest complaint', as the case may be; thus leading the processes forward, which would then be completed without any reference to the opinion of the 'Expert Panel' or the 'Apex Body'”, ordered the Court.

Background Facts

The Apex Court in Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab (2005) observed that not all medical complications were due to medical negligence. It thus framed guidelines stating that investigating officers must seek expert opinions from committees comprised of medical and forensic experts for initiating criminal prosecutions. In Kerala, the state government constituted two expert bodies, a 'District Level Expert Panel' at the district level and a 'State Level Apex Body' at the State level for conducting studies regarding medical negligence cases where a criminal investigation is undergoing. District Level Expert Panel would conduct an initial study and if there is a difference of opinion amongst its members, then further study would be conducted by State Level Apex Body

The Court was considering two writ petitions where the police investigation is continuing. WP(C)No.38061/2022 (hereafter referred to as case I) was filed by the accused doctor and the hospital where the expert committee found against the doctor. WP(C)No.3649/2024 (hereafter referred to as case II) was filed by the deceased patient's parent where the expert committee found in favour of the doctor.

The Counsel for the petitioners in Case I contended that the investigating officer should not look into the report of the Apex Body since it was untenable, illegal and issued without power and competence. It was argued that injustice would occur if the investigating officer relied upon the impugned report of the Apex Body finding the doctor guilty of medical negligence.

The Counsel for the petitioner in Case II argued that the Apex Body report was passed without understanding the imputations in proper perspective and disregarding the medical protocols. It was argued that it would be unjust if the investigation would be closed solely based on the expert committee report exonerating the doctor.

The Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose submitted District Level Expert Panel/ State Level Apex Body would not intervene in criminal investigations conducted by the police in medical negligence cases.

The Court was apprised that the competent body has to submit its expert opinion within 30 days, based on which the police investigation would continue. It was submitted that the investigating officer was not bound by the expert opinion and will not act exclusively based on it. It was argued that both writ petitions could be dismissed since the investigating officer would conduct his own independent investigation by seeking additional expert opinion from any source of his choice. It was also argued that the accused would get a fair trial based on evidence and other relevant materials, dehors the opinion of the District Level Expert Panel/ State Level Apex Body.

Court Findings

The Court stated that a higher degree of care and scrutiny must be maintained when allegations are levelled against a doctor. It stated that the state government constituted a District Level Expert Panel/ State Level Apex Body pursuant to the Apex Court decision in Jacob Mathews (supra) so that the investigating officer receives proper scientific and medical assistance.

In Case I, the Court observed that the investigating officer was not bound by the expert committee reports but is only guided by it. It stated that even if the report was against the doctor, it would not prevent the doctor from being exonerated and acquitted if innocence is proved before the Court. It said, “To paraphrase, Criminal Courts are not bound by any such opinion, but only by the Investigation Reports and evidence to be presented; and I cannot, therefore, see the apprehensions of the petitioners in this case to be tenable, in any manner at all.”

In Case II, the Court observed that the expert committee gave an expert opinion noting that there was no gross medical negligence. The Court stated that the expert body could not have given such an opinion since it was up to the investigating officer to complete the investigation by collecting materials and evidence. It held that the investigating officer cannot close the investigation solely based on a committee report exonerating the doctor.

Thus, the Court dismissed Case I, clarifying that the Trial Court is not bound by expert opinion and must complete the trial as per law based on evidence.

The Court allowed Case II and directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation and to file a charge sheet before the Magistrate by collecting evidence and materials as per law without being bound by the expert opinion. It stated that the expert opinion finding that there is “no gross medical negligence would be treated by the investigating officer only as an opinion and the investigation will be thus completed”.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate N N Sugunapalan, Advocates Babu S Nair, Smitha Babu, S Sujin, P T Mohankumar, George Cherian

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose, Advocates Latha Anand, S Vishnu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280

Case Title: K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 3649 OF 2024, WP(C) NO. 38061 OF 2022

Click here to read/download Judgment