A State Level Apex Body evaluating medical negligence is validly constituted if it can seek external expert opinions and is preceded by a specialist-led District panel; such a body is not bound by the external opinions it requests.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

1. Heard C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Appeal No.2163 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 407 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.

2. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.38061 of 2022. Appellants were the petitioners in the said W.P.(C).

3. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellants, a hospital and a doctor working therein, challenging Exhibit P3 report of the State Level Apex Body constituted as per Exhibit P4 circular memorandum by the Government, which had concluded that there was criminal negligence on the part of the 2nd appellant doctor in treating a lady who died during her delivery in the hospital.

4. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia declining to grant the reliefs sought for, however clarifying that the trial court wherein the subject matter is being considered shall not be bound by Exhibits P3 and P5 expert opinions and that the trial against the 2nd appellant shall be completed as per law based on the evidence to be adduced. Aggrieved by the said judgment to the extent it dismissed the W.P. (C), this appeal has been filed.

5. Heard Sri.Mohan Kumar P.T., Advocate for the appellants and Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, Additional Director General of Prosecution and Sri.Vishnu S.(Arikkattil), Advocate for the 7th respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and unsustainable as it overlooks the fact that the report of the Apex Body could not have been treated as a report of experts at all. The learned Single Judge failed to note that the Apex Body did not have any experts from the relevant field of medicine and was only comprised of a panel of doctors from the Administrative Departments, such as Health Services and Medical Education.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Apex Body had erroneously concluded that the 2nd appellant had been negligent, while the District Level Expert Panel Committee, which comprised doctors from the field, had vide Exhibit P2 concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd appellant. It is pointed out that the constitution of the Apex Body, compared to the District Level Expert Panel Committee, leaves much to be desired, as there was not even an expert member in the Apex Body competent to arrive at the conclusions seen to have been arrived at in Exhibit P3 report. It is submitted that the four members of the Apex Body are not experts in the subject and the decision arrived at by them detrimentally impacts the appellants. Pointing to Exhibit P4 circular memorandum issued by the Government on 16.06.2008 containing instructions for the constitution of an Apex Body of four members, it is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge ought to have noted that the said circular to the extent it does not make provision for inclusion of one expert member from the respective field of Medical Science