Discrepancy between opinion of doctor who first examined the injured and the subsequently constituted Medical Board comprising of senior and better qualified doctors---Preference to be given to opinion of Medical Board-

 2022 S C M R 946

Discrepancy between opinion of doctor who first examined the injured and the subsequently constituted Medical Board comprising of senior and better qualified doctors---Preference to be given to opinion of Medical Board---

A 'Three Tier Structure' for conducting medico legal work had been established in the Province by the Provincial Health Department---Hierarchy of the medical examination as notified by the Health Department clearly reflected that against the opinion of the initial medical officer, the Medical Board would be constituted---Prior to the constitution of the said Medical Board, a judicial order had to be passed by the Magisterial Court---In the present case, according to the Medical Board, the injured witness was re-examined by four doctors including a Medical Superintendent, fully equipped with knowledge and expertise and also better in experience than the earlier expert who examined the injured witness soon after the occurrence---Argument of the complainant side that preference had to be given to the earlier examination by the medical officer could not be agreed with because the expert's opinion depended upon many factors including, physical examination, qualification, experience and finally collective wisdom of the members of the Board---In the report of the Medical Board, which comprised of four senior doctors having superior qualification and experience, it had been observed that the Board was of unanimous opinion that regarding the subject injury, the possibility of fabrication could not be ruled out---When there was conflict in opinions of the medical experts, the expert having better qualification, insight, experience, and more particularly the joint consensus of richly equipped members had more weightage, hence it had to be given precedence over the first examination conducted by a junior doctor, especially, when members of Board were four in number, whereas the first doctor who examined the injury at the first instance was only a single member assigned the duty to examine the injured person.