SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal and A.K. Mathur, JJ.
Smt. Savita Garg —Petitioner
versus
The Director, National Heart
Institute —Respondent
Appeal (Civil) 4024 of 2003
Decided on 20.12.2004

IMPORTANT POINT
Claim petition cannot be dismissed on ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 23—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order I Rules 9 and 10—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of patient—National Commission dismissed original petition of appellant on ground of non-joinder of necessary parties—When a patient goes to a private clinic, he goes by reputation of clinic and with hope that proper care will be taken by Hospital authorities—It is not possible for patient to know that which doctor will treat him—When a patient is admitted to a private clinic/ hospital it is hospital/ clinic which engages doctors for treatment—Appellant’s husband was admitted to best of hospital and it is not possible for appellant to find out that who is the best doctor and who is not—It is responsibility of clinic that they must provide best of services when they charge for services rendered by them—In case it is found that services rendered by clinic or hospital is not up to mark and it involves some negligence on their part for which patients suffer then they are bound to reimburse them—They charge fee for services rendered by them and they are supposed to bestow best care—No suit shall fail because of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties—It can proceed against persons who are parties before Court—Even Court has power under Order 1 Rule 10(4) to give direction to implead a person who is a necessary party—Even if after direction given by Commission concerned doctor and nursing staff who were looking after deceased have not been impleaded as opposite parties it cannot result in dismissal of original petition as a whole—Hospital/Institute is not going to suffer on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and Commission should have proceeded against hospital—Impugned order set aside and matter remitted back to National Commission for fresh decision. (Paras 3, 8, 9, 20 and 21)

       (B) Torts—Medical services—Medical negligence—Patients once they are admitted to hospitals, it is responsibility of hospital or medical institutions to satisfy that all possible care was taken and no negligence was involved in attending patient—Burden cannot be placed on patient to implead all those treating doctors or attending staff of hospital as a party so as to substantiate his claim—Once a patient is admitted in a hospital it is responsibility of Hospital to provide best service and if it is not then hospital cannot take shelter under technical ground that concerned surgeon or nursing staff, was not impleaded and claim should be rejected on basis of non-joinder of necessary parties—Once a claim petition is filed and claimant has successfully discharged initial burden that hospital was negligent, as a result of such negligence patient died, then in that case burden lies on hospital and concerned doctor who treated that patient that there was no negligence involved in treatment—Since burden is on hospital they can discharge the same by producing that doctor who treated patient in defence to substantiate their allegation that there was no negligence—It is hospital who engages treating doctor thereafter it is their responsibility—Burden is greater on Institution/ hospital than that of claimant.

       Held: It will be a difficult task for the patient or his relatives to undertake this searching enquiry from the Hospital and sometimes hospital may not co-operate. It may give such details and sometimes may not give the details. Therefore, the expression used in Rule 14 (1) (b), “ so far as they can be ascertained”, makes it clear that the framers of the Rules realized that it will be very difficult specially in the case of medical profession to pinpoint that who is responsible for not providing proper and efficient service which gives rise to the cause for filing a complaint and specially in the case like the one in hand. The patients once they are admitted to such hospitals, it is the responsibility of the said hospital or the medical institutions to satisfy that all possible care was taken and no negligence was involved in attending the patient. The burden cannot be placed on the patient to implead all those treating doctors or the attending staff of the hospital as a party so as to substantiate his claim. Once a patient is admitted in a hospital it is the responsibility of the Hospital to provide the best service and if it is not, then hospital cannot take shelter under the technical ground that the concerned surgeon or the nursing staff, as the case may be, was not impleaded, therefore, the claim should be rejected on the basis of non-joinder of necessary parties. In fact, once a claim petition is filed and the claimant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the hospital was negligent, as a result of such negligence the patient died, then in that case the burden lies on the hospital and the concerned doctor who treated that patient that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. Since the burden is on the hospital, they can discharge the same by producing that doctor who treated the patient in defence to substantiate their allegation that there was no negligence. In fact it is the hospital who engages the treating doctor thereafter it is their responsibility. The burden is greater on the Institution/ hospital than that of the claimant. (Para 10)