Doctor Cannot Be Summoned for Medical Negligence Without Awaiting Expert Opinion Ordered by Court; Medical Negligence Cases Require Expert Scrutiny Before Summoning Doctors: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Dr. Rohit Lalit v. Sourabh Chhabra
Date of Judgment: 05 June 2026
Citation: CRM-M-56222-2024
Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that when a trial court itself directs procurement of an expert medical opinion from a premier institution such as PGI Chandigarh in a complaint alleging medical negligence, it cannot subsequently ignore its own direction and summon the doctor without awaiting that expert report. The Court quashed the summoning order against a doctor accused of causing a patient’s death through medical negligence and directed the trial court to first obtain and consider the PGI report before taking a fresh decision.
Summary: The petition arose from a criminal complaint filed by the brother of a 22-year-old woman who allegedly died after receiving treatment at Jagdamba Hospital, Gurugram. It was alleged that the deceased had visited the hospital for fever, cough and body pain and suffered complications after administration of an injection during treatment. She was later shifted to another hospital where she was declared dead. On these allegations, criminal proceedings were initiated against the treating doctor for medical negligence.
The complainant alleged that the death resulted from gross medical negligence and that the treating doctor failed to provide appropriate treatment and emergency care. The complaint further questioned the manner in which the patient was handled after complications allegedly developed during treatment.
The doctor challenged the summoning order primarily on the ground that an expert body, namely the District Medical Negligence Board comprising six doctors, had already examined the matter and concluded that he could not be held negligent. The Board’s report dated 05.02.2024 specifically opined that no medical negligence was attributable to the doctor in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A significant aspect noticed by the High Court was that the trial court itself had passed an order on 28.09.2023 directing that all relevant medical records be sent to PGI Chandigarh for an independent expert opinion regarding culpable medical negligence. The trial court had specifically sought a report from a Board of Doctors to be constituted by the Director, PGI Chandigarh.
However, despite repeatedly awaiting the report and even forwarding additional documents to PGI Chandigarh, the trial court proceeded to hear arguments and ultimately issued a summoning order against the doctor without receiving or considering the expert opinion it had itself considered necessary.
Justice Surya Partap Singh held that such a course of action was contrary to judicial discipline. Once the trial court had consciously concluded that an expert opinion was necessary for a fair adjudication of allegations of medical negligence, it could not disregard its own order and proceed to summon the accused without obtaining the report. If there were practical difficulties in obtaining the report, the proper course would have been to recall or modify the earlier order by assigning reasons.
The Court further observed that expert medical opinion assumes particular significance in prosecutions alleging medical negligence and assists courts in determining whether the conduct of a medical professional falls within the realm of criminal liability. The trial court’s failure to follow its own direction deprived it of material that was intended to aid a proper judicial determination.
Decision: Allowing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the summoning order dated 04.09.2024 passed against the doctor. The Court directed the trial court to procure the expert report from PGI Chandigarh in terms of its earlier order dated 28.09.2023, consider the same along with the remaining material on record, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations of medical negligence.