Supreme Court: In the present case, an appeal was filed assailing the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘NCDRC’) whereby it was held that, there was no liability attached to the Nursing Home, Chandigarh (‘nursing home’) for the death of Respondent 1’s wife and his new born son, and the entire responsibility of paying Rs. 20,26,000 was upon the Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, consulted by Respondent 1 and his wife.
The Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., stated that the entire focus of NCDRC was only upon the antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case. In doing so, the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction, as it was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings and build up a new case on its own. Thus, the Court stated that the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by NCDRC, stated that Respondent 1 should return and refund the sum of 10,00,000 received by him, to Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, ‘Dr. G’ and the insurer, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Background
In the present case, a complaint case was filed stating that Respondent 1’s wife, who was 32 years old, was in 8th month of her pregnancy when she started consulting the Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist. According to the complaint case, Respondent 1 and his wife visited the nursing home for check-ups and were assured that all was well and that it would be a normal delivery.
On 21-12-2005, Respondent 1’s wife was admitted for delivery. However, the new-born child died instantly after birth, on the next day. It was alleged that the nursing home was ‘inadequately and ill equipped’ to handle emergencies during deliveries. According to the averments, after the mother was informed about the death, she went into shock, which caused profuse bleeding. No blood was readily available for transfusion and the delay in shifting her to another place, resulted in her being declared ‘brought dead’. Further, the van in which Respondent 1’s wife was taken, was also ill-equipped. It was alleged that ‘Dr. G’, who represented the nursing home, chose to follow the van in his car separately and, there was no qualified doctor in the van.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, (‘SCDRC’) vide order dated 31-1-2007, found the Obstetrician/Gynaecologist and the nursing home, medically negligent on the ground that they did not exercise due care and caution in treating Respondent 1’s wife. SCDRC concluded that the nursing home and wasted almost two hours in getting blood and cross-matching it, which led to deterioration of the patient’s condition. However, it was held that there was no fault on their part insofar as the death of the new-born child was concerned. SCDRC directed them to pay Rs. 20,26,000 to the complainants. However, as they were covered by the insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Company Limited, the company was directed to pay Rs. 20,00,000 and the balance was to be paid by the nursing home.
Subsequently, an appeal was filed and NCDRC, which concluded that no liability would attach to the nursing home and pinned the entire responsibility of paying Rs. 20,26,000 upon the Obstetrician/Gynaecologist.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court examined the contents of Medical Boards/Committees’ Reports and observed that none of the reports had held the Obstetrician/Gynaecologist as negligent. Given the settled legal position that every failure in patient’s treatment does not lead to an assumption of medical negligence, the Court opined that the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance in favour of Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, as none of them found any medical negligence on her part.
The Court noted that NCDRC’s conclusion that there was negligence on the part of Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, only in the antenatal care and management. More importantly, NCDRC rendered a clear finding that there was no medical negligence at the nursing home. The Court stated that these conclusions, arrived at by the NCDRC, reversed the findings of the SCDRC and in fact, it decided the matter by building up a new case altogether.
The Court stated that the entire focus of NCDRC was only upon the antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case. In doing so, the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction, as it was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings in the complaint case and build up a new case on its own. The complaint case categorically asserted that the nursing home was ‘inadequately and ill equipped’ to handle emergencies during deliveries and there were no facilities available in that regard. There were no allegations whatsoever to the effect that the antenatal care and management of Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, were deficient in any manner.
Thus, the Court stated that the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings. The impugned order passed by the NCDRC, confirming the SCDRC’s judgment on the new grounds made out by it, could not be sustained. However, it’s finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the post-delivery treatment of Respondent 1’s wife had attained finality, as no separate appeal was preferred by the complainants.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated 9-5-2012, passed by NCDRC, and the judgment dated 31-1-2007 passed by the SCDRC, and in consequence, the said complaint case shall stand dismissed. The Court stated that Respondent 1 should return and refund the sum of 10,00,000 received by him, to Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, ‘Dr. G’ and New India Assurance Company Ltd.
[Deep Nursing Home v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1934, decided on 9-9-2025]
*Judgment authored by -Justice Sanjay Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv.; Kawaljit Kochar, Sr. Adv.; Deepanshu, Adv.; Utkarsh Vats, Adv.; Shivam Jasra, Adv.; Deveshi Chand, Adv.; Drouhn Garg, Adv.; Rajivkumar, AOR
For the Respondent: Satinder Gulati, Adv.; Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR; Mohit Gupta, Adv.; Meera Mathur, AOR; Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Adv.; Sunita Gupta, Adv.; Ipshita Gupta, Adv.; Manan Verma, AOR; Sumit Kumar, Adv.; Shubham Arora, Adv.
