Court Cannot Conduct Race Of Opinion Between Competing Experts: Karnataka HC Dismisses Candidate's Plea To Quash Ocular Examination Report
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the Ocular Examination Report which was claimed to be erroneous given other medical examination reports while noting that the Court cannot conduct a race of opinion between competing experts.
The Court said that the impugned report by the Doctors of Government Hospital partakes the character of expert opinion as contemplated under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner-candidate who claimed to be visually impaired beyond 40% seeking to quash the report of the Bengaluru Medical College and Research Institute and to direct authorities to accept his candidature under the visually impaired quota.
The bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed, “This Court cannot conduct a race of opinions between the competing experts, especially with the one which has statutory recognition, others lacking it.”
Advocate Shivaraj S. Balloli appeared for the Appellant and Government Advocate G.K. Hiregoudar appeared for the Respondent.
The Court observed, “The three Doctors, who happen to the Members of the Collegium, are experts in the field of ophthalmology. They are not only the Doctors but Assistant Professors of ophthalmology imparting education to the medical students. They have glorious qualifications. To this is added their long experience.”
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Post Graduate Institute Vs. J.B. Dilawari and quoted, “Specialization is the order of the day. About half a century back, a general medical practitioner was in a position to attend to all human ailments in accordance with the then known methods of treatment. Today for the purpose of medical attention the human body has been divided into several parts and expertise with regard to these has so developed that specialization has become the order of the day. Though the court, it is stated, is the expert of experts, it is proper to take note of its limitations. Realization of this situation has led to a series of pronouncements where this Court has reiterated the position that matters involving expertise should be left to be handled by expert bodies.”
The Court said that soliciting report after report at the hands of multiple experts would only create confusion & chaos in the litigation process and therefore is not desirable, “buck has to stop somewhere and line has to be drawn as of necessity”, the Court said further.
The Court said that a Writ Court too in matters like this cannot run a race of opinions with the experts. “An argument to the contrary if accepted would lay a wrong precedent that may breed more mischief outweighing the justice arguably due to the litigant.”, the Court explained.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the Petition.
Cause Title: Disha v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:12385-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Shivaraj S. Balloli
Respondent: Govt. Adv. G.K. Hiregoudar and Adv. Surabi Kulkarni
