Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated time and again that a court dealing with a case of medical negligence is not bound to accept the expert opinion and is well within right to reject it.
Held in State of H.P. v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280 that whether such evidence could be accepted or how much weight should be attached to it is for the court to decide.
Para 17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.
H.P. v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221 states :
Para 34. Medical science is a difficult one. The court for the purpose of arriving at a decision on the basis of the opinions of experts must take into consideration the difference between an “expert witness” and an “ordinary witness”. The opinion must be based on a person having special skill or knowledge in medical science. It could be admitted or denied. Whether such an evidence could be admitted or how much weight should be given thereto, lies within the domain of the court. The evidence of an expert should, however, be interpreted like any other evidence.
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221 states :
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709 states :
Para 16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court’s knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed. The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are: (i) that the expert must be within a recognised field of expertise, (ii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles, and (iii) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline.
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709
V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513 clarifies the position of law that requirement to obtain independent medical opinion before proceeding against a doctor (as held in judgment of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab), is meant only for cases of criminal negligence and not for cases filed before Consumer Fora. It further also clarifies the position that a consumer fora is not bound to accept the opinion of expert (if any).
Para 58. ” In most of the cases the question whether a medical practitioner or the hospital is negligent or not is a mixed question of fact and law and the Fora is not bound in every case to accept the opinion of the expert witness. Although in many cases the opinion of the expert witness may assist the Fora to decide the controversy one way or the other.”
V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513
Maharaja Agrasain Hospital Vs. Master Rishab (2020) 6 SCC 501 states :
Para 12.3.2. It is well settled that a court is not bound by the evidence of an expert, which is advisory in nature. The court must derive its own conclusions after carefully sifting through the medical records, and whether the standard protocol was followed in the treatment of the patient. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the court with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions, so as to enable the court to form an independent opinion by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case.
Maharaja Agrasain Hospital Vs. Master Rishab (2020) 6 SCC 501