Expert Medical Opinion Needed Before Prosecuting Doctors For Medical Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra has quashed a private criminal complaint and the consequent summoning order that had sent several doctors to trial for alleged medical negligence after a woman died days after delivering twins. The Court held that the material before the Magistrate did not provide prima facie, competent medical opinion attributing criminal rashness or negligence to the treating doctors, including in light of an earlier medical inquiry that found no lapse. Cautioning against launching criminal process without credible expert scrutiny, the Court noted that lay complainants and investigators cannot be expected to assess medical conduct, and that once initiated the process can cause “serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment” to medical professionals.
The petition was filed invoking inherent jurisdiction to seek quashing of a private criminal complaint and a summoning order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, by which several doctors were directed to face trial for offences alleging a rash or negligent act resulting in death. The complaint arose from allegations that the complainant’s wife, who was admitted to a nursing home for delivery, developed complications after childbirth and later died during subsequent treatment at another hospital. It was alleged that improper surgical intervention and post-operative management led to her death.
Preliminary evidence was led before the Magistrate, including the complainant’s statement, testimony of a relative, and deposition of a doctor who later supervised treatment at another medical institution. On the basis of this material, the Magistrate issued process. The petitioners contended that no prima facie case of criminal negligence was made out, relying on medical testimony, a prior police inquiry conducted pursuant to court directions, and settled principles governing criminal prosecution of medical professionals. They asserted that the evidence did not attribute negligence and that mandatory safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court were not followed.
The Court examined the scope of criminal liability for medical negligence and referred to governing principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It recorded that “the criminal process once initiated subjects the medical professional to serious embarrassment and sometimes harassment” and that safeguards are required where allegations concern professional medical conduct.
While analysing the summoning order, the Court noted that the Magistrate relied upon the complainant’s version and medical evidence without identifying material attributing negligence. It observed that “no finding has been recorded that the medical evidence produced on record pointed out that it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners that resulted into death of the victim.”
The Court took note of the sworn testimony of the treating specialist from the subsequent hospital and recorded that “the testimony of CW-3 shows that the petitioners had not committed any negligence while treating the victim.” It further observed that the said witness had clearly deposed that the condition of the patient and complications suffered were medically explained and not attributable to negligent conduct.
The Court also referred to an inquiry conducted by a government medical team pursuant to earlier judicial directions, noting that “a report was submitted that the events that had taken place with the victim from her treatment upto her death, were natural and no doctor was found to be careless/negligent.”
Critically assessing the Magistrate’s approach, the Court stated that “the learned Magistrate even did not refer the complaint to some board of doctors to obtain any independent and competent medical opinion and did not adopt the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” It recorded that, in the absence of a credible independent medical opinion supporting allegations of rashness or negligence, continuation of criminal proceedings could not be sustained.
The Court allowed the petition and ordered that “the impugned complaint, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti and the summoning order dated 23.03.2018 passed therein are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom qua the petitioners herein.” All miscellaneous applications connected with the matter “also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. S. Randhawa, Advocate
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Dhawan and Others v. Gurpreet Singh
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:000895
Case Number: CRM-M-15772-2018 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
