Neeraj Sud vs Jaswinder Singh (Minor)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 980

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Neeraj Sud – Appellant
Versus
Jaswinder Singh (Minor) – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Ms. Srishti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Aryan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sambhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nischay Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Amit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Madhukar Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Ruchika Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Adv. Ms. Chanda Jaitly, Adv. Mr. Harshly Jain, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Madhukar Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Ruchika Prasad, Adv. Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Adv. Ms. Chanya Jaitly, Adv. Mr. Harshly Jain, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The key issues in the Neeraj Sud versus Jaswinder Singh case are as follows:

Whether the deterioration in the patient's condition post-surgery constitutes evidence of medical negligence or malpractice (!) .
Whether the medical treatment was performed with due care, skill, and in accordance with accepted medical standards (!) .
Whether the adverse outcome was a known risk associated with the surgical procedure, and if such risks negate claims of negligence (!) .
Whether the complainants provided sufficient evidence to establish a breach of duty or negligence on the part of the doctor (!) .
Whether the medical records and expert testimonies substantiate claims of malpractice or support the defense that the doctor exercised reasonable care (!) .
The appropriate standard of proof required to establish medical negligence in cases involving adverse surgical outcomes (!) .

These issues revolve around the core question of whether the medical practitioner’s conduct breached the duty of care owed to the patient, considering the inherent risks of the procedure and the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Mithal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the above appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘NCDRC’], New Delhi deciding First Appeal No.245/2005 filed by the complainants against Dr. Neeraj Sud and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research,²[Hereinafter referred to as ‘PGI’], Chandigarh.

3. The complaint of the complainants i.e. Complaint Case No.29/1998 regarding medical negligence against Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI was dismissed by the State Commission vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2005. Aggrieved by the above decision, the complainants preferred appeal before the NCDRC. After remand in the first round, the matter again came up before the NCDRC wherein the present impugned order has been passed and the complaint has been partly allowed. The judgment and order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint has been set aside holding that Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI are jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as costs with 6% interest from the date of the complai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document