Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
K.G.M. Hospital and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Sandeep Kaur and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 34 of 2013
(Against the order dated 01.08.2012 in Complaint Case No. 4/2006 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) With IA Nos. 7527 of 2019 and 6853 of 2020
Decided on 27.11.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Kunal Bahri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sehel Khan, Amicus Curiae

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Standard of Proof & Parallel Proceedings – Although civil cases are decided on a “preponderance of probability” (unlike the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt”), findings in a criminal trial that have attained finality (up to the Supreme Court) cannot be ignored if they involve the same evidence and witnesses.
(2) Evidence of Recovery – The “Driving License” Test – The fact that the complainant cleared driving tests and obtained licenses in two countries (India and Australia) shortly after treatment served as material evidence of functional recovery and motor capability, contradicting the claim that she was “crippled” for life.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act – Medical Negligence – Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Appreciation of Evidence – Impact of Acquittal in Parallel Criminal Proceedings – The complainant alleged that negligent treatment of a pelvic fracture by the appellant (an orthopedic surgeon) led to a 1.5-inch shortening of her left leg and 45% disability – State Commission originally allowed the complaint, relying heavily on the fact that criminal charges had been framed against the doctor – Appeal – NCDRC found that the doctor had since been acquitted by the criminal courts, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court – Commission held that while civil and criminal standards of proof differ, the findings of the criminal court regarding the falsity of forgery allegations and the exaggeration of disability (from 45% down to approximately 4%) were highly relevant – While the doctor was found deficient for initial lapses in diagnosing/treating the left pelvic region specifically, the complainant’s subsequent life successes (obtaining driving licenses in India and Australia, marriage, and childbirth) mitigated the claim of “gross” negligence – Appeal partly allowed; compensation reduced by 50%

ORDER

The respondents/complainants filed CC/4/2006, alleging medical negligence against the appellants in respect of an alleged negligent orthopaedic surgery that resulted in deformities and the State Commission taking notice of a handicap of 45% as well as reduction in the length of her left leg by 1.5 inches allowed the complaint awarding the amount of expenses incurred in the medical treatment of the patient and in addition thereto a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the reduction in the chances of the patient to settle in life and a further Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. This order was impugned by the complainants in FA/735/2017, alleging that the State Commission had awarded a lesser amount as claimed and therefore the same should be enhanced. The said appeal FA/735/2017 came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on 14.02.2023.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Hospital and the doctor assailing the same impugned order contending that the order of the State Commission is based on erroneous assumptions of fact and law and therefore the same deserves to be set aside. The respondents in this appeal had also been extended the aid of learned amicus curiae, Mr. Sehel Khan who was also heard and on 18.08.2025 we passed the following order:—

“Heard Mr. Kunal Bahri, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sehel Khan, Amicus Curiae for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellants has prepared a convenience compilation which shall be handed over when the matter proceeds on the next date for final hearing. Having examined the order sheets and the other documents on record as well as the pleadings prima facie this was a case relating to medical negligence alleged by the respondents/complainants against appellant regarding orthopaedic surgery. The delay in the filing of this appeal was condoned on 10.11.2014 and it appears that the respondents/complainants had also filed FA/735/2017 against the very same impugned order for enhancement of the compensation.

The said appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on 14.02.2023.

The order is extracted herein under:—

“The present Appeal has been filed in the year 2017 against the order dated 01.08.2012 of the State Commission. The Appeal since been delayed for more than 4 years, an application IA No. 6165 of 2017 has been moved seeking condonation of delay.

IA No. 6165 of 2017 (condonation of delay)

1. Arguments on this application are heard.

2. It is settled proposition of law that party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay of each and every date and of such nature which were beyond its control and which prevented him/her to approach the Court for filing the Appeal. In this application, no ground except that Appellant had been unwell has been disclosed.

3. It is settled law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The person who is seeking condonation of delay has to show the reasonable cause which prevented him/her from filing the appeal/revision within the period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:—

“12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after suff