• Inability to ascertain cause of death does not constitute misconduct, tribunal holds
• Terms disciplinary action procedurally flawed

ISLAMABAD: A medical tribunal in Islamabad has set aside disciplinary sanctions imposed on four senior forensic experts who conducted the exhumation and post-mortem examination of a deceased, but could not come up with a definitive cause of the death.

The tribunal, comprising retired justices Safdar Saleem Shahid and Azam Qambrani and technical member Dr Minhajus Siraj, announced the decision on June 4, defining the limits of professional liability in forensic medicine and clarifying how scientific opinions should be evaluated by regulatory bodies.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings 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 to conduct an autopsy of a landlord from Sindh who died under “mysterious circumstances”.

Faisal Mugheri was a young landlord in Jacobabad who died of unknown causes in 2020. No member of his family raised any suspicion at the time of the death, but a month later, his second wife surfaced and approached a local court seeking exhumation and post-mortem of the body, alleging that he had been murdered.

The court issued the order and established the board. The board, however, could not come up with a definitive cause of death, prompting the woman to approach the PMDC for action against the board members, which comprised senior specialists in forensic medicine, pathology, and medico-legal practice.

Subsequently, the PMDC Disciplinary Committee suspended the licences of all four doctors for five years and imposed a fine of Rs500,000 each, alleging professional negligence and misconduct.

The decision, authored by Safdar Saleem Shahid, determined that the disciplinary findings were unsupported by scientific evidence, procedurally flawed, and contrary to established principles of forensic medicine. The judgement is among the first decisions in Pakistan to recognise the principle that scientific uncertainty cannot by itself be equated with professional negligence.

The exhumation in question was conducted about 45 days after the burial. The body had undergone advanced decomposition, with severe deterioration of tissues and organs, the tribunal observed. It said that forensic pathology recognises that decomposition significantly impairs the ability to determine cause of death.

The judgement held that the inability of experts to conclusively determine the cause of death in a decomposed exhumed body does not, by itself, establish incompetence, negligence or misconduct. The tribunal noted that the medical board had documented its observations, collected samples, obtained laboratory assistance and provided reasons for its inability to reach a definitive conclusion.

Another notable aspect of the decision is the tribunal’s treatment of competing scientific opinions. The PMDC had relied upon a later expert opinion questioning certain aspects of the board’s conclusions. The tribunal held that disagreement between experts was an inherent feature of scientific inquiry and cannot automatically be transformed into professional misconduct.

According to the judgement, regulatory authorities must distinguish between deliberate falsification of evidence and genuine scientific disagreement. Unless there is proof of fabrication, dishonesty, manipulation of evidence, or bad faith, a difference in professional interpretation cannot, without more, justify disciplinary sanctions, it added.

The regulatory bodies must evaluate expert conduct on the basis of accepted scientific methodology rather than the eventual popularity or acceptability of a particular conclusion, it said.

The judgement highlighted deficiencies in the disciplinary process, including vague allegations, procedural irregularities, and reliance upon expert opinions without adequate procedural safeguards. It held that quasi-judicial bodies must issue orders that identify specific violations, analyse the evidence, address the defence raised by the accused professional and explain the rationale for any penalty imposed.

The tribunal also took exception to the PMDC for failing to formulate its rules and regulations and directed it to initiate the process within a reasonable period and placing the proposed rules before the competent authority for approval in accordance with the law.

Published in Dawn, June 8th, 2026