Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Mahadeo Singhi Netra
Chikitsalaya and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Rameshwar Lal and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2728, 2729 and 2730 of 2019 & 557, 558 and 559 of 2020
Decided on 14.7.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Medical services – Medical negligence – Loss of vision after eye surgery – Compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with 9% interest awarded by State Commission – There are concurrent findings of medical negligence/deficiency of service on part of OPs – Scope in a Revision Petition is limited – Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order – Degrees of negligence in criminal negligence and negligence under civil law are jurisprudentially different – It is only to fasten liability in criminal law that degree of negligence has to be gross or of higher degree – Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide better protection in interest of consumers and not to short circuit the matter or to defeat claim on technical grounds – Complainants have endured significant physical, emotional, and financial hardships – Compensation awarded by both Fora is inadequate – Enhanced amount of compensation is necessary to ensure that justice is done – Compensation awarded by State Commission enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs 6,00,000/- to each of complainants, alongwith 9% interest. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Result: Revision Petitions allowed.
ORDER
These six RPs, the three sets of cross RPs, have been filed by the Parties, as detailed below, under section 21(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the orders dated 16.09.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in various First Appeals (FAs) in which order dated 11.09.2018 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in various Consumer Complaints were challenged.
2. Three complaints viz. CC/366/2013, CC/365/2013 and CC/364/2013 were filed before the District Forum by three complainants viz. Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Mr. Khayali Ram and Smt. Revati Devi respectively and were disposed off by a common order dated 11.09.2018 of the District Forum. Nine Appeals were filed challenging the said common order in the three consumer complaints as per following details:—
(a) FA/822/2018, FA/823/2018 and FA/824/2018 were filed by Mahadeo Singhi Netra Chikitsalaya, Dr. Pramod Kr. Sehgal and Dr. Amitabha Chakrabarti (Three Appellants jointly filing three Appeals).
(b) FA/863/2018, FA/864/2018 and FA/865/2018 were filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(c) FA/495/2019, FA/497/2019 and FA/496/2019 were filed by the complainants Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Mr. Khayali Ram and Smt. Revati Devi respectively.
(d) The nine Appeals were disposed off by the State Commission vide three common orders, of dated 16.09.2019 viz. (i) FA/822/2018, FA/863/2018 and FA/495/2019, (ii) FA/823/2018, FA/864/2018 & FA/497/2019 and (iii) FA/824/2018, FA/865/2018 & FA/496/2019.
(e) Against the said three common orders in nine FAs, six Revision Petitions have been filed. Three RPs viz. No. RP/2728/2019, RP/2729/2019 & RP/2730/2019 have been filed challenging the said common orders by the three Petitioners viz. Mahadeo Netra Chikitsalaya, Dr. Pramod Kr. Sehgal and Dr. Amitabha Chakrabarti jointly. The other three RPs viz. Nos. RP/557/.2020, RP/558/2020 and RP/559/2020 have been filed by the three complainants viz. Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Sh. Khayali Ram and Smt. Revati Devi, challenging the three common orders in FA. No RP has been filed by the United India Insurance Company. As Smt. Revati Devi (Petitioner in RP/557/2020 and Respondent No.1 in RP/2730/2019) died, an application -IA/8260/2022 dated 01.09.2022 was filed for impleading her legal heirs. Same is allowed.
3. As the issues involved in six RPs are same/ related, arising out of allegations of medical negligence by the three complainants Mr. Rameshwar Lal, Mr. Khayali Ram & Smt. Revati Devi against the three OPs viz. Mahadeo Netra Chikitsalaya, Dr. Pramod Kr. Sehgal and Dr. Amitabh Chakrabarti, these are being dealt together. United India Insurance Company Ltd. was OP-4 in the three consumer complaints.
4. The main prayer in three RPs filed by OP-1 to OP-3 is for setting aside the order(s) of the State Commission and to stay the operation of the order. The main prayer in three RPs filed by the three Complainants is for enhancement of compensation awarded by State Commission.
5. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) in all the RPs. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 19.03.2020 (Petitioners herein) and 05.06.2023 (Respondents herein) respectively. For the sake of convenience we will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the CCs before the District Forum.
6. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RPs, Orders of the State Commission, Orders of the District Commission and other case records are that (taking RP 2728 of 2019 as lead case) the complainant (Rameshwar Lal) sought medical treatment for vision problems at OP-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Hospital). OP-2 (Dr. P.K. Sehgal) examined the complainant and diagnosed cataract in the left eye, recommending surgery to restore vision. The surgery took place on 15.01.2013, at the Hospital, performed by OP-2. However, the surgery was allegedly carried out carelessly and without sufficient
SupremeToday
(1) Revision – A revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revis....
“Lasik procedure if not performed with reasonable care and skill, which caused retinal displacement amounts to medical negligence.”
(1) Duty of care – The duty of care implies that the doctor must exercise reasonable skill and care, adhering to the standards expected of a medical professional in similar circumstances.(2) Breach –....
Revisional jurisdiction - Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illeg....
National Commission - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited.
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
The court upheld that medical negligence claims must be substantiated with expert evidence, and standard surgical practices cannot be deemed negligent without such proof.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
