Judicial Use of Expert Medical Opinions: A Study of Sri Lankan Law

Abstract

Expert opinions are integral to judicial decision-making when specialized knowledge or expertise is required to address issues beyond the court's ordinary understanding, as provided under Section 46 of the Evidence Ordinance No. 14 of 1895. In Sri Lanka, the role of medical experts has been particularly significant in shaping the outcomes of cases involving complex issues such as medical negligence, personal injury, homicides, paternity disputes, disability claims, insurance claims, and assessments of mental capacity. Courts rely heavily on such expert opinions to provide clarity and authoritative guidance in areas requiring technical proficiency and scientific insight. This study, through a qualitative analysis of decided case law, explores the extent to which courts have relied on the evidence of medical professionals in determining case outcomes. The findings highlight that courts have consistently given considerable weight to the opinions of medical experts when such opinions are rooted in specialized knowledge and relevant experience. Judges have underscored the necessity for the expert to possess specific expertise in the field directly relevant to the case, often emphasizing the importance of precise qualifications and experience. However, courts have also shown a discernible inclination to dismiss generalized or irrelevant opinions from medical professionals who lack specialized knowledge in the specific area of inquiry. This approach demonstrates the judiciary's critical evaluation of expert testimony, ensuring that only domain-specific expertise is accepted to inform judicial determinations, thereby maintaining the integrity and reliability of court proceedings.