The Kerala High Court has affirmed that when criminal medical negligence is alleged, the state has a non-discretionary duty to constitute a District Level Expert Committee to evaluate the complaint. This ruling establishes a clear procedural safeguard for complainants and reinforces accountability in healthcare delivery.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a 64-year-old resident of Kozhikode, filed a criminal complaint (Ext.P1) on 19.05.2025 against Dr. Abhishek Rajan (Respondent 5) and Malabar Hospital (Respondent 4), alleging gross medical negligence leading to severe harm. The complaint was submitted to the District Medical Officer (Respondent 1) and the Superintendent of Police, Nadakkavu (Respondent 3). The petitioner contended that the allegations met the threshold for criminal liability under Section 304A IPC and demanded a formal inquiry by a medical expert panel.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint on 19.05.2025, detailing alleged failure in diagnosis, delayed intervention, and improper post-operative care.
- On 11.06.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation (Ext.P2) to the Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), urging intervention.
- The 3rd respondent (SHO, Nadakkavu Police Station) requested the 1st respondent (District Medical Officer) to constitute a Medical Board to examine the allegations on 20.05.2025.
- The 1st respondent failed to constitute any committee despite repeated requests.
- The petitioner filed an RTI application on 07.01.2026 seeking status of the complaint (Ext.P4).
- The 1st respondent replied on 17.01.2026 (Ext.P5), stating no action was taken due to pending internal review.
- On 14.03.2026, the petitioner submitted another representation (Ext.P6) demanding immediate constitution of the committee.
- The petitioner obtained an RTI reply from the Town Sub-Division Police on 18.08.2025 (Ext.P3), confirming receipt of complaint but no investigation initiated.
Procedural History
- 19.05.2025: Ext.P1 complaint filed with District Medical Officer and SHO.
- 20.05.2025: SHO (Respondent 3) formally requested constitution of Medical Board.
- 11.06.2025: Representation sent to Principal Secretary (Respondent 2).
- 07.01.2026: RTI application filed with District Medical Officer.
- 17.01.2026: RTI reply received - no committee constituted.
- 14.03.2026: Final representation submitted to District Medical Officer.
- 15.06.2026: Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 13856 of 2026) filed before the High Court of Kerala.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Medical Officer (Respondent 1) to constitute a District Level Expert Committee to examine the allegations of criminal medical negligence in Ext.P1 and submit a report to the SHO (Respondent 3).
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the District Medical Officer has a statutory and constitutional duty to constitute a District Level Expert Committee to assess allegations of criminal medical negligence when formally requested by law enforcement, and whether failure to do so amounts to a violation of the right to effective remedy under Article 21.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that under Section 174 CrPC and Rule 12 of the Medical Council of India (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, authorities are obligated to refer serious medical negligence complaints to an independent expert panel. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Dr. Suresh v. State of Haryana, which held that criminal medical negligence cannot be assessed without expert medical opinion. The failure to constitute the committee, despite repeated requests, amounted to inaction violating the petitioner’s right to life and health under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader conceded that the District Medical Officer had not constituted the committee but stated that the matter was under internal review and that the District Level Expert Committee was in the process of being formed. No statutory bar or legal justification for delay was advanced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that allegations of criminal medical negligence involve complex medical and technical issues beyond the expertise of police or administrative officers. The absence of a formal expert evaluation renders any criminal proceeding premature and legally unsustainable. The Court noted that the District Level Expert Committee, as contemplated under the National Health Mission guidelines and State Health Department circulars, is the designated mechanism for such assessments.
"The State cannot remain a silent spectator when grave allegations of criminal negligence in healthcare are made. The duty to constitute a competent expert body is not discretionary; it is a constitutional obligation arising from the right to life and health under Article 21."
The Court rejected the argument that the matter was "under review," emphasizing that delay without justification defeats the purpose of the remedy. It held that the petitioner’s repeated representations and the SHO’s formal request created a clear, actionable duty. The Court further clarified that the Committee’s role is not to determine guilt but to provide an objective medical assessment to guide further legal action.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the District Medical Officer (Respondent 1) to constitute a District Level Expert Committee within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Committee shall examine the allegations in Ext.P1 and submit its report to the SHO, Nadakkavu Police Station (Respondent 3). The report must be completed and forwarded within the stipulated period. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Expert Committees Are Mandatory, Not Optional
- Practitioners must now insist on the constitution of District Level Expert Committees in all criminal medical negligence complaints, regardless of whether police have filed an FIR.
- Failure to constitute such a committee can be challenged via writ petition under Article 226.
Procedural Delay Is Not a Defense
- Administrative inaction or "pending review" cannot justify non-compliance with statutory or constitutional duties.
- Courts will impose strict timelines - eight weeks was set here as an outer limit.
Medical Negligence Requires Objective Assessment
- Oral testimony or police reports alone are insufficient to establish criminal intent or negligence.
- Any prosecution under Section 304A IPC must be preceded by an expert medical evaluation.
