A medical tribunal has overturned disciplinary sanctions imposed on four senior forensic experts who conducted the exhumation and post-mortem examination of a deceased landlord in Sindh, ruling that scientific uncertainty cannot be treated as professional negligence.
The tribunal, comprising retired justices Safdar Saleem Shahid and Azam Qambrani, along with technical member Dr Minhajus Siraj, announced its decision on June 4.
The ruling clarifies the limits of professional liability in forensic medicine and sets an important precedent for evaluating scientific opinions in disciplinary proceedings.
The case stemmed from disciplinary action initiated by the former Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC), now the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC), against members of a special medical board constituted by the Sindh government.
The board was tasked with conducting an exhumation and autopsy of Faisal Mugheri, a young landlord from Jacobabad who died under unexplained circumstances in 2020.
While no family member initially raised concerns about his death, his second wife later approached a local court, alleging he had been murdered and seeking exhumation of the body.
Following the court’s order, a medical board comprising specialists in forensic medicine, pathology, and medico-legal practice conducted the examination. However, due to the advanced state of decomposition, the experts were unable to determine a definitive cause of death.
The complainant subsequently approached the PMDC, which suspended the licenses of all four doctors for five years and imposed fines of Rs500,000 each on allegations of professional negligence and misconduct.
In its judgement, the tribunal ruled that the disciplinary findings lacked scientific support, were procedurally flawed, and contradicted established principles of forensic medicine.
The tribunal observed that the exhumation was carried out approximately 45 days after burial, by which time the body had undergone severe decomposition, significantly limiting the ability to establish the exact cause of death.
It held that the inability to determine a cause of death in such circumstances does not, by itself, amount to incompetence, negligence, or misconduct.
The ruling noted that the medical board had properly documented its observations, collected samples, sought laboratory assistance, and transparently explained why a conclusive finding could not be reached.
The tribunal also rejected PMDC’s reliance on a later expert opinion that questioned aspects of the board’s conclusions. It stated that differences of opinion among experts are a normal part of scientific inquiry and cannot automatically be converted into grounds for disciplinary action.
According to the judgment, regulatory authorities must distinguish between genuine scientific disagreement and deliberate misconduct.
Unless there is evidence of fabrication, dishonesty, manipulation of evidence, or bad faith, differing professional interpretations cannot justify punitive action.
The tribunal further stressed that regulatory bodies should assess expert conduct based on accepted scientific methodology rather than the popularity or acceptability of a particular conclusion.
The ruling also highlighted shortcomings in the disciplinary process, including vague allegations, procedural irregularities, and inadequate consideration of the defense presented by the accused doctors.
It held that quasi-judicial bodies must clearly identify alleged violations, examine evidence thoroughly, address the defense of the accused, and provide detailed reasons for any penalties imposed.
Additionally, the tribunal criticized the PMDC for failing to formulate its rules and regulations and directed the council to initiate the process of drafting and approving the required regulatory framework within a reasonable timeframe.
Legal experts view the judgment as a landmark ruling that reinforces protections for medical professionals and establishes that scientific uncertainty alone cannot serve as a basis for professional misconduct proceedings.