FINDINGS OF EXPERT BODIES CANNOT BE DISREGARDED

 The Supreme Court in Martin F. D' Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 S.C.C. 1 has held:

“The National Commission had sought the assistance of AIIMS to give a report about the
allegations of medical negligence against the Appellant. Surprisingly, the Commission has not
placed much reliance on the report of Dr. Ghosh, although he is an outstanding ENT specialist
of international repute. We have carefully perused the judgment of the National Commission and
we regret that we are unable to concur with the views expressed therein.

The Commission, which consists of laymen in the field of medicine, has sought to substitute its
own views over that of medical experts, and has practically acted as super-specialists in
medicine. Moreover, it has practically brushed aside the evidence of Dr. Ghosh, whose opinion
was sought on its own direction, as well as the affidavits of several other doctors (referred to
above) who have stated that the Appellant acted correctly in the situation he was faced.

The courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their
own views over that of specialists.”

 The High Court in Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre (Private) Ltd. v. State of NCT of
Delhi [Crl MC No. 2358/2010] vide their order dated 11.02.2011 had concluded that:

“In the present case, two Boards independent of each other; one of AIIMS and other of
Directorate of Health Services have given clean chit to the petitioners. In view of opinion of two
expert bodies exonerating Dr. Anupam for gross negligence and in view of Supreme Court
holding that Court cannot be an expert in such cases and the opinion regarding medical
negligence given by an independent board shall have more credibility, I consider that no useful
purpose shall be served in proceeding against the petitioners.”

 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Dr. Deepak
Kumar Satsangi & Anr. v. Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre (P) Ltd. & Ors. 2016 SCC
OnLine NCDRC 1652 placed reliance on the case of Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre
(Private) Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi and also on the findings of two expert medical
boards and concluded that there was no medical negligence.
 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2005) 6
SCC 1 has also proposed certain guidelines to Government regarding the prosecution of
doctors. One of the guideline is that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the
complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of credible
opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or
negligence on the part of treating doctor.