The Supreme Court has reiterated two crucial principles of law, holding that a doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence per se simply because a treatment or surgery failed, and that consumer commissions cannot decide a case on grounds that were never raised in the pleadings. In a significant ruling on the jurisdiction of consumer fora, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had found a doctor guilty on a completely new ground not pleaded by the complainant.
The Court allowed an appeal filed by Deep Nursing Home and Dr. (Mrs.) Kanwarjit Kochhar against the NCDRC’s 2012 order, which had held the doctor liable for the death of a patient, Charanpreet Kaur, following childbirth in 2005. The Supreme Court dismissed the original complaint and directed the deceased’s husband, Manmeet Singh Mattewal, to refund the ₹10,00,000 he had received as compensation.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Manmeet Singh Mattewal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Chandigarh, following the tragic death of his wife, Charanpreet Kaur, and their newborn son on December 22, 2005.
Charanpreet Kaur was admitted to Deep Nursing Home on December 21, 2005, for delivery under the care of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. The newborn child died shortly after birth, and the mother subsequently passed away due to profuse bleeding after being transferred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh.
In his complaint, Mr. Mattewal alleged post-delivery negligence. The specific claims were that the nursing home was “inadequately and ill equipped” for emergencies, that there was a delay in arranging blood for transfusion, that informing the mother of the newborn’s death caused her to go into shock leading to haemorrhage, and that she was not transferred to PGI with adequate medical support.
The SCDRC, in its judgment dated January 31, 2007, found the nursing home and Dr. Kochhar medically negligent for wasting “almost two hours in getting blood and cross-matching it,” which led to the deterioration of the patient’s condition. It awarded a compensation of ₹20,26,000 to the complainants.
Appeals and NCDRC’s Divergent Finding
The nursing home and Dr. Kochhar appealed the SCDRC’s order before the NCDRC. They argued that the patient had suffered from atonic Post Partum Haemorrhage (PPH), a known and severe complication where the uterus fails to contract after childbirth. They contended that treatment was administered as per protocol and that several Medical Boards, constituted upon the complainant’s own representations to various authorities, had found no “gross medical negligence.”
The NCDRC, in its order dated May 9, 2012, overturned the SCDRC’s findings regarding post-delivery care. It concluded that “no case of tortious medical negligence was made out against Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in handling Charanpreet Kaur’s labour, including the delivery, the management of the baby… and the post-delivery management at the nursing home.”
However, the NCDRC went on to build a new case that was never pleaded by the complainant. It held Dr. Kochhar negligent for alleged deficiencies in the antenatal care, opining that she failed “to insist on the patient getting standard haematological investigations done.” Based on this new ground, the NCDRC held Dr. Kochhar solely liable for the compensation amount while exonerating the nursing home.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court found the NCDRC’s approach to be a clear jurisdictional error. The judgment, authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar, stated that the NCDRC had travelled beyond the scope of the complaint. The Court noted, “The specific claim of Manmeet Singh Mattewal… was that there was medical negligence on the part of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the nursing home in the post-delivery treatment only… He made no allegations whatsoever to the effect that the antenatal care and management of Charanpreet Kaur were deficient in any manner.”
The Court emphatically held that consumer fora cannot create a new case for the complainant. It observed, “Once his case, as pleaded and projected, was not made out, 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.”
Citing its own precedent in Trojan and Company vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar (1953), the bench reiterated the settled legal principle that “the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.”
The judgment also gave weight to the reports of five successive Medical Boards, which had concluded that there was no gross medical negligence. Referencing the principles laid down in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, the Court remarked that a doctor cannot be held liable per se “simply because a patient did not favourably respond to the treatment given by a physician or if a surgery failed.”
As the NCDRC’s finding that there was no post-delivery negligence had attained finality, and its finding on antenatal negligence was based on grounds not pleaded, the Supreme Court concluded that its order was unsustainable.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of both the NCDRC and the SCDRC were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Court directed Mr. Mattewal to refund the ₹10,00,000 compensation in monthly instalments of ₹1,00,000.
