Kerala High Court says doctors not above law, refuses relief in 10-year-old girl’s death case

“It is a cardinal aspect of the rule of law that nobody is above the law and everybody is equal before the law. Those who swear by the Hippocratic oath at the time of entering the noble profession of medicine cannot ignore or avoid the commitment expected of them in the practice of medicine by the laws of our country,” the August 4 order read. 

A 2010 incident, father’s battle

It was claimed that these two doctors, 62 and 64,  had treated the 10-year-old daughter of the man, who was admitted to the Christian Mission Hospital on August 2, 2010, with complaints of abdominal pain and vomiting. She was apparently administered Bigtum 600 mg IV along with Rantac 0.5 cc almost immediately after, which showed signs of discomfort necessitating her shifting to the ICU and later to another hospital with mechanical ventilation.

However, she later died while in the critical care unit at the said hospital. It was added that the autopsy report showed the cause of death as on account of “choking”. The girl’s father then lodged a complaint alleging criminal medical negligence, following which an FIR was registered. As part of the investigation, the matter was referred to the state’s two-tier expert panel constituted to examine complaints against doctors from a medico-legal perspective.

Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Preeta A K noted that the incident occurred in 2010 and yet no trial has commenced till now.

Although the state-level apex body had earlier submitted two reports exonerating the doctors, those reports were set aside by the high court in earlier proceedings. The apex body was directed to reconsider the matter and submit a fresh opinion. In its latest report, the panel expressed an opinion that the doctors had been grossly negligent, prompting the doctors to challenge the report before the Kerala High Court.

‘Didn’t question panel’s composition earlier’

The court clarified that the expert panel’s report is only a piece of expert evidence and not a finding of guilt. It observed that the investigating officer must independently assess the report during the investigation, and the doctors would have a full opportunity to challenge it during the criminal trial.

Rejecting the doctors’ objection that the apex body lacked paediatric experts, the court noted that they had never questioned the panel’s composition when its earlier reports had cleared them of wrongdoing. It observed that the objection was raised only after the panel gave an opinion adverse to them.

“We have not come across any material that would lead us to doubt the competence of the apex body to offer their views on the medico-legal aspects of the incident under consideration,” it added. 

Arguments 

Representing the two doctors, advocate S Gopakumaran Nair argued that the expert panel had no material to conclude that the doctors were guilty of gross negligence. He also contended that the panel did not include specialists in paediatrics and therefore its opinion could not be treated as expert evidence against the doctors.

Opposing the appeal, advocate Jacob P Alex, appearing for the girl’s father, submitted that the expert panel’s report is only scientific evidence that can be tested during the trial and does not by itself determine the doctors’ guilt. He argued that the doctors could not claim to be aggrieved merely because the panel had expressed a prima facie opinion against them.