The judgment establishes that medical professionals must adhere to a standard of care, and failure to do so can result in liability for negligence and compensation for damages.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions as noted above.

2. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 32406-07 of 2017 have been filed by Legal Representatives (for short “LRs”) of the deceased patient seeking enhancement of compensation awarded on account of alleged medical negligence, whereas Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 19478-79 of 2019 have been filed by the doctors who have been held liable and were directed to pay damages for deficiency in service along with refund of treatment costs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their positions before the National Commission.¹ [The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi]

3. Briefly, the facts available on record are that a complaint² [Complaint Number 310 of 2003] was filed before the District Forum³ [District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)] on 01.08.2003, by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners before this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 32406-32407 of 2017, seeking compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of death of his wife (late Sheela Malviya). The allegations were of medical negligence. She was admitted in the nursing home managed by the deceased respondent No. 1 Dr. A.H. Memon, who is now represented by his LRs. for the treatment of Nasal Polyps. On 17.08.2001 (pg. no. 17) Endoscopic Polypectomy was performed, however, she suffered from cardiac arrest soon after completion of the procedure. Since Dr. A.H. Memon’s hospital did not have ventilator facility, she was shifted to the opposite party No. 5, Dr. Rajendra Banthia’s nursing home on the same day. The patient was given treatment for around 19 days at Dr. Rajendra Banthia’s nursing home, however her condition remained critical. On 06.09.2001 (page no. G), she was shifted to opposite party No. 6, Dr. Gautam Darda’s hospital where the patient expired on 07.09.2001.

4. The District Forum vide order dated 26.07.2006 dismissed the complaint qua opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 before it, namely; Dr. A.H. Memon, Dr. M. Arif Memon, Dr. S. Rathi, Dr. Anil Jain, Dr. Aarti Gautam Darda, Dr. Chandrika Sahu and Dr. Atul Tiwari.

5. The complaint was accepted only qua opposite party No. 5 namely Dr. Rajendra Banthia. He was directed to refund the entire treatment charges received by him to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Additionally, Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be paid on account of deficiency of service and Rs. 2,000/- were awarded as legal expenses. The amount was to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. from 17.08.2001 till realization.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the complainant namely late Shri D.C. Malviya, husband of the deceased and also the opposite party No. 5 Dr. Rajendra Banthia against whom compensation was awarded, filed appeals⁴ [Appeal Number 457 of 2006 and Appeal Number 472 of 2006] before the State Commission.⁵ [Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur] Both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 12.10.2009.

7. Still aggrieved, both the aforesaid parties filed Revision Petitions⁶ [Revision Number 24 of 2010 and Revision Number 382 of 2010] before the National Commission. The revision petition filed by late Shri D.C. Malviya represented through his LRs. was allowed to the extent that in addition to the relief already granted by the District Forum, opposite party No. 1 through LRs and opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- jointly and severally to the LRs of the complainant. Opposite party 7 and 8 were directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- each for giving contradictory CT Scan reports. Cost of Rs. 20,000/- was also directed to be paid by all opposite parties except opposite party No. 6. Opposite party No. 5, Dr. Rajendra Banthia was directed to pay compensation as awarded by District Forum. The amount was directed to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the