No district panels for medical negligence cases? MP HC seeks response from Centre, state

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought the Centre and State Government's response to a PIL questioning the absence of medical panels in each district for consultation in medical negligence cases against doctors.

A Division Bench of the MP High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal issued notices to the Centre and the State on September 11, seeking a response within four weeks.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the High Court by a doctor, who submitted that "two decades after the Supreme Court asked for a panel of doctors to be constituted in each district across states for consultation in cases of medical negligence against doctors, not a single such panel was put together in the state."

Also Read: Police Authorities cannot proceed against medical professional in routine manner: MP HC comes to rescue of a doctor

According to a TOI report, the petitioner, Dr Talha Saad, the president of a medical association in Sagar district, cited the Supreme Court order in the 2005 case of Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab, where the Apex Court had mandated an expert medical panel for necessary consultation before filing such cases against doctors. 

Filing the PIL, the petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines in such cases.

Supreme Court's Directions in Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab: 

The Supreme Court, in the landmark Judgment Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, framed guidelines under which a Doctor could be held criminally liable on account of his professional negligence or deficiency of service.

While laying down the guidelines to prosecute doctors accused of medical negligence, the Apex Court had stated in 2005, "Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam’s test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld."

Also Read: SC to decide on Statutory framework for criminal prosecution of doctors in medical negligence cases, notice issued