Cannot summon doctor in medical negligence case without awaiting sought expert opinion: HC quashes trial court order

Chandigarh: Setting aside a summoning order issued against a doctor in a criminal complaint alleging medical negligence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the trial court acted perversely and contrary to the settled norms of judicial discipline, as it did not await an expert opinion, which it itself had directed to be obtained.

"The chronology of events, which unfolded during the proceedings of complaint, makes 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 report, the summoning order has been passed. 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," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Surya Pratap Singh.

"...the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has committed an error by ignoring its own order which otherwise was going to help the learned trial Court to arrive at a proper conclusion," the bench further observed.

The matter concerned a Gurugram-based doctor accused in a medical negligence case linked to the death of a 22-year-old woman. The deceased patient's brother filed a complaint alleging that his sister died on January 21, 2023, due to the negligent treatment at a hospital in Gurugram.

As per the case details, the patient had visited the hospital with complaints of fever, cough and body pain. Allegedly, while undergoing treatment, after receiving an injection, she developed complications and was later shifted to another medical facility, where she was declared dead.

The complainant accused the treating doctor of medical negligence and sought criminal action against him.

Based on his complaint, a District Medical Negligence Board was set up to probe the allegations. The Board, after reviewing the matter, held that the treating doctor could not be held negligent.

Since the police did not take any action against the petitioner doctor, the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, seeking cognizance against the petitioner and the conduct of the trial. He also moved an application seeking a direction to the police to register the FIR against the petitioner, by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Even though the trial court dismissed the application, it proceeded further to record the preliminary evidence to be adduced by the original complainant. When the complaint was pending before the trial court on 10.04.2024, the trial court issued a direction for calling a report from PGI Chandigarh. 

Thereafter, without waiting for the report, the trial court issued the order summoning the doctor, as an accused to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved by this, the doctor approached the High Court and prayed to quash the summoning order in question.

Observations by HC bench: 

While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of the trial court's order dated 28.09.2023, through which, it had sought a second opinion from the Director of PGI Chandigarh.

"The subsequent order passed by the learned trial Court in the above-mentioned complaint shows that till 09.05.2024, the above-mentioned report was not received by the learned trial Court," noted the HC bench.

"On 09.05.2024, the case was adjourned to 11.06.2024. However on 31.05.2024, the file was taken up by the learned trial Court and the case was adjourned to 07.08.2024. On 07.08.2024 without waiting for the report of PGI, the learned trial Court proceeded to hear arguments, and thereafter, passed the summoning order dated 04.09.2024," it further observed.

Considering the chronology of events, the HC bench observed that there was a direction by the trial court to seek an expert report from PGI Chandigarh. However, without waiting for the same, it issued the summoning order. This according to the High Court bench was perverse and contrary to the settled norms of judicial discipline.

"Another aspect to be noted in the present case is that if there was any difficulty in procuring the report of PGI Chandigarh as ordered on 28.09.2023, the proper course available to the learned trial Court was to recall the above-mentioned order by giving a justification and then proceed further with the above-mentioned complaint. But such procedure was not adopted by the learned trial Court," it further observed.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that "Taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has committed an error by ignoring its own order which otherwise was going to help the learned trial Court to arrive at a proper conclusion."

Setting aside the summoning order, the HC bench observed, "Thus, taking into consideration the above-mentioned discussion, it is hereby observed that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the present form. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside/quashed. However, a direction is given to the learned trial Court to procure the report of PGI Chandigarh as mandated vide order dated 28.09.2023 appreciate the same alongwith other material available on record, and pass a fresh order. The present petition stands allowed, accordingly...However, before parting ways with the above-mentioned order, it is hereby clarified that any observation recorded in the present order are for the purpose of determining the present petition only and it shall have no bearing while passing fresh order by the learned trial Court."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/16/punjab-n-haryana-hc-trial-court-summon-354147.pdf

Also Read: Punjab and Haryana HC dismisses orthopaedic surgeon's plea; no absolute right to appear in person