Supreme Court Holds Consumer Forum Exceeded Jurisdiction in Building New Case of Medical Negligence

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal challenging concurrent orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that had found medical negligence in the death of a mother and her newborn. The appeal by Deep Nursing Home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar assailed findings that ultimately pinned liability on the obstetrician for alleged lapses in antenatal care and ordered compensation to the complainants.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside both the NCDRC and SCDRC orders and dismissed the underlying consumer complaint. It concluded that the NCDRC had exceeded its jurisdiction by travelling beyond the pleadings and construing a new case against the doctor which was not the subject-matter of the complaint. The Court relied on multiple medical board reports that had found no gross medical negligence and reiterated settled law that “every failure in the treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on his behalf and in pinning negligence and liability upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in the context of antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case.” The appeal was allowed and the orders dated 09.05.2012 and 31.01.2007 were set aside.

Background The dispute arose after Charanpreet Kaur, aged about 32 and in the eighth month of pregnancy, delivered on 22 December 2005 at Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh; the newborn was declared dead shortly after birth and the mother later died on being shifted to PGI, Chandigarh. The complainant alleged that the nursing home was “inadequately and ill equipped” to handle post-delivery emergencies, that there was delay in arranging blood transfusion and in shifting the patient, and that the staff caused further harm by improper handling of the emergency. The initial complaint before the SCDRC (Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006) led to a finding of negligence against the nursing home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and an award of compensation of ₹20,26,000, largely met by the insurer.

On appeal, the NCDRC dismissed liability of the nursing home but, contrary to the pleadings, held Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar liable for deficient antenatal management, observing departures from standard protocols and the absence of certain haematological investigations. The NCDRC therefore directed the doctor to pay the balance of compensation. The Supreme Court took note that five separate Medical Boards/Committees, constituted by various authorities and on the complainant’s instigation, had perused the records and repeatedly opined that there was no gross medical negligence in the management of the patient. Applying precedents including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Court emphasised that courts and consumer fora must not substitute their judgment for that of medical specialists and that a treatment failure does not ipso facto establish negligence.

Procedural history included the SCDRC judgment of 31.01.2007, NCDRC order of 09.05.2012, directions by this Court for interim payments, and the present Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 2016, which was admitted and finally disposed of. The Supreme Court found that the NCDRC had effectively built a new case beyond the reliefs pleaded by the complainant and therefore transgressed its jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the consumer proceedings were dismissed, and the Court directed refund of sums received by the complainant: Manmeet Singh Mattewal was directed to refund ₹10,00,000 in monthly instalments, with specified distribution to the insurer and the doctors. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2016 Case Title: Deep Nursing Home and another … Appellants Versus Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment extract] For the Respondent(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment extract]