2025 Supreme(SC) 1664

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Deep Nursing Home and Another – Appellants
Versus
Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 2016
Decided On : 09-09-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of Constitution is not the proper remedy against appellate order passed by NCDRC.
(2) Medical Negligence – Every failure in treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence.
(3) Pleadings – Decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside pleadings of parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special leave – Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of Constitution is not the proper remedy against appellate order passed by NCDRC – However, as this matter was entertained and has been pending on file of this Court for over twelve years, it is not proper to relegate appellants at this late stage to alternative remedy under Article 226 of Constitution before jurisdictional High Court. (Para 4)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Medical Negligence – Death of newborn child – Every failure in treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence – Opinions expressed by doctors and experts, who constituted Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted balance in favour of Doctor, as none of them found any medical negligence on her part – Simply because a patient did not favourably respond to treatment given by a Physician or if a surgery failed, Doctor cannot be held liable per se by applying doctrine of res ipsa loquitur – NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction as it was not for it to travel beyond pleadings in complaint case and build up a new case on its own – NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for complainants, contrary to their pleadings – Order passed by NCDRC set aside and complaint case dismissed. (Paras 22, 23, 28, 30 and 31)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 1 – Pleadings – No party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings – Decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside pleadings of parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found – All necessary and material facts should be pleaded by a party in support of case set up by it – Object and purpose of pleadings is to enable adversary party to know the case it has to meet as, in order to have a fair trial, it is imperative that a party should settle essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. (Para 29)

Facts of the case:

Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar filed First Appeal No. 158 of 2007 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, assailing SCDRC’s judgment. First Appeal No. 193 of 2007 was filed separately by New India Assurance Company Limited. However, by order dated 09.05.2012, NCDRC dismissed both appeals. Therein, NCDRC came to conclusion that no liability would attach to Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, and pinned the entire responsibility of paying Rs. 20,26,000/-upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. As Rs. 6,00,000/- had already been deposited pursuant to its order dated 12.04.2007 and was withdrawn by Manmeet Singh Mattewal, NCDRC directed her to pay balance sum of Rs. 14,26,000/- in 6 weeks along with costs of Rs. 14,000/-.

Findings of Court:

NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for complainants, contrary to their pleadings. However, its finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the post-delivery treatment of Charanpreet Kaur have attained finality as no separate appeal was preferred by the complainants. Impugned order passed by NCDRC, confirming SCDRC’s judgment on the new grounds made out by it, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Result : Appeal allowed.