The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a summoning order issued against a Gurugram-based doctor in a criminal medical negligence case, holding that the trial court acted contrary to judicial discipline by proceeding without waiting for an expert medical opinion that it had itself directed to be obtained.
HC Finds Trial Court Ignored Its Own Direction
Justice Surya Pratap Singh observed that the trial court had specifically ordered the procurement of an expert opinion from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, but later issued the summoning order without receiving or considering the report.
The High Court noted that such a course of action was legally unsustainable and amounted to a perverse exercise of jurisdiction.
“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,” the Court observed.
Case Relates to Death of 22-Year-Old Woman
The matter arose from a complaint filed by the brother of a 22-year-old woman who died on January 21, 2023, following treatment at a private hospital in Gurugram.
According to the complaint, the woman had visited the hospital with symptoms including fever, cough and body pain. During treatment, she allegedly developed complications after being administered an injection and was subsequently shifted to another medical facility, where she was declared dead.
The complainant alleged medical negligence by the treating doctor and sought criminal action.
Medical Negligence Board Had Cleared Doctor
A District Medical Negligence Board was constituted to investigate the allegations. After examining the case, the Board concluded that the treating doctor could not be held negligent.
Since no action was taken by the police, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, seeking criminal proceedings against the doctor and registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Although the magistrate dismissed the request for FIR registration, the complaint proceedings continued.
Trial Court Sought PGI Chandigarh Opinion
During the pendency of the complaint, the trial court, on September 28, 2023, directed that an independent expert opinion be obtained from PGI Chandigarh.
However, court records showed that the report had not been received even by May 9, 2024. Despite this, the matter proceeded, and on September 4, 2024, the trial court summoned the doctor to face trial under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence.
Challenging the order, the doctor approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
High Court Sets Aside Summoning Order
Examining the sequence of events, the High Court held that once the trial court had considered an expert opinion necessary, it should have either awaited the report or formally recalled its earlier order with valid reasons.
The Court observed that no such procedure was followed and that the summoning order was passed without considering potentially crucial expert evidence.
The bench further stated that the expert report from PGI Chandigarh could significantly assist the trial court in reaching a proper conclusion regarding the allegations of medical negligence.
Fresh Decision Ordered After Expert Report
Allowing the doctor’s petition, the High Court quashed the summoning order and directed the trial court to obtain the PGI Chandigarh report, evaluate it along with the available evidence on record, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the present petition and would not influence the trial court while reconsidering the matter.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling reinforces the legal principle that criminal prosecution in medical negligence cases must be based on credible expert medical opinion. The judgment also underscores the importance of procedural fairness and judicial consistency, particularly in cases involving allegations against healthcare professionals.
The decision is expected to serve as an important precedent in medical negligence litigation, emphasizing that courts must adhere to their own procedural directions before initiating criminal proceedings against doctors.
