Dr. TALAL KHURSHID BHATTI vs The PUNJAB HEALTHCARE COMMISSION S — 2026 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. TALAL KHURSHID BHATTI VS The PUNJAB HEALTHCARE COMMISSION S.23(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Medical negligence---Complaint before the Punjab Healthcare Commission (PHC), filing of---Limitation---PHC dismissing the complaint as time barred, challenge to---Worsening of an injury due to medical negligence providing recurring or continuing cause of action, plea of---Scope and applicability---Section 23(2) of the PHC Act, 2010 prescribing asixty-day limitation computed from the "date of knowledge"---Statutory framework---Date of knowledge, determination of---Whether subsequent diagnostic findings or expert opinions of doctors can extend or revive limitation---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioner underwent a surgical procedure performed by respondent No.3 at Doctor's Hospital, Lahore in September 2018 and was subsequently diagnosed with a 'rotator cuff tear' at the same operative site---As asserted by the petitioner, he approached PHC in June 2021 on the premise that the cause of action was recurring in nature, contending that the injury which had been attributed to the alleged medical negligence not only persisted but had progressively worsened---He further maintained that the complaint was instituted only upon obtaining what he considered conclusive medical evidence substantiating the respondent doctor's negligence---PHC, however, dismissed the complaint as time-barred under S. 23(2) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 (PHC Act) citing sixty-day limitation period from the date of knowledge of cause of action---Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was as to "whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner's asserted cause of action constituted a recurring or continuing cause of action so as to extend the limitation period, or whether the limitation prescribed under S. 23(2) of the PHC Actwas applicable stricto sensu from the date of knowledge?"---Held: In para No. 27 of the complaint the petitioner himself submitted that the cause of action in the instant matter initially accrued on 13.09.2018 when the negligent surgery was performed by respondent doctor, thereafter, accrued on 19.10.2019 when the IM Nail was removed through another surgery where the tear to the rotator cuff could have been observed and treated---Petitioner filed a complaint on 11.06.2021, and in para 27,the cause of action was stated to have accrued---Para No. 27 stated that "the cause of action in the instant matter initially accrued on 13.09.2018 when the negligent surgery was performed, thereafter accrued on 19.10.2019 when the IM Nail was removed through another surgery where the tear to the rotator cuff could have been observed and treated; thereafter, the cause of action has been recurring as the rotator cuff tear caused by negligent surgeries still exists and has worsened, as also acknowledged by different consultants through their expert opinions, and keeps on worsening each day by agonizing and distressing the complainant as well as interfering in the complainant's daily routine work being a professional doctor in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; the cause of action is de die in diem"---The petitioner had already explicitly stated that the cause of action was accrued on 13.09.2018, when the negligent surgery was performed by respondent doctor and thereafter on 19.10.2019, when the IM Nail was removed during another surgery, both of which were time-barred by 31 months and 13 months, respectively---The counsel for the respondent doctor submitted that the petitioner also filed "suit for damages for Rupees 500,000,000/- (50Crore) on account of medical negligence before the civil courts at Lahore on 04.10.2021, wherein in para 27, the exact cause of action was mentioned---If the cause of action was considered to have accrued on 13.09.2018 and 19.10.2019, respectively, as narrated in the complaint, which was filed with the Punjab Healthcare Commission on 11.06.2021, then the complaint was filed with a delay of 31 months and 13 months, respectively, excluding the period of filing the complaint, i.e., 60 days---If the dates of cause of action were taken from the reply submitted by the petitioner before the PHC, i.e., 07.06.2020, when the x-ray was received, and the expert opinions obtained by the petitioner dated 17.07.2020, and 05.08.2020, respectively, then the delays became 10 months, 9 months, and 8 months, respectively, excluding the period of filing the complaint---In any eventuality, the complaint before the PHC was time-barred---The dates that the petitioner mentioned in his reply to the application of respondent doctor were already in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of submitting the complaint, still he did not mention it in his complaint---He did not even mention this fact in the "suit for damages"---Petitioner was a doctor by profession and was aware of the harm he had suffered---However, he continued to try to justify his delay by consulting various doctors, and based on their opinions, it could not be determined whether the complaint was filed on time---Therefore, the PHC had rightly disposed of the petitioner's complaint by ruling that the complaint was time-barred---There was no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the PHC warranting interference by the High Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dr. TALAL KHURSHID BHATTI vs The PUNJAB HEALTHCARE COMMISSION S — 2026 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD