Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4402
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
X, Y, JJ
The National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Mahmood – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2013 | F.A. No. 425 of 2009 | F.A. No. 649 of 2009 | C.C. No. 195 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate A, Advocate B
For the Respondents:Advocate C, Advocate D
Medical negligence established due to lack of standard care leading to death; responsibility shared by insurer and practitioner.
Headnote:This case involves a challenge to the compensation awarded under the Consumer Protection Act following a finding of medical negligence leading to the death of a patient and her newborn. The Supreme Court confirms the findings of the lower forums regarding negligence and upholds the compensation of Rs. 1.50 lakh while imposing a cost of Rs. 2.50 lakh on the Insurance Co., reflecting their failure to adequately serve the legal heirs. The Court determined that the Insurance Co. did not demonstrate merit in its revision against the concurrent findings of negligence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to compensation under consumer protection act. (Para 1) |
| 2. failure of service to legal heirs noted. (Para 2 , 3 , 10) |
| 3. incidents of medical negligence detailed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. compensation awarded due to negligence established. (Para 6) |
| 5. verdict confirms findings of previous forums. (Para 8 , 11) |
1. This Revision Petition has been filed under S.21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 15.4.2013 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A.s No. 425 of 2009 and No. 649 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 31.1.2009 in C.C. No. 195 of 2007 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Beed, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.
The Petitioner, The National Insurance Company Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 3 before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Insurance Co.'.
The original Respondent No. 1 - Shaikh Mahmood, was the Complainant before the District Forum, he expired during the pendency of the proceedings before this Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant'.
The extant Respondents No. 1 to No. 9, Julekha Begum (wife of the deceased Complainant), Shaikh Jafar Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Mazar Mahmood, Shaikh Juber Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Zaber Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Azhar Shaikh Mahmood, Shaikh Abdul Rahman Mused (all sons of the deceased Complainant), Sadiya Fatima (unmarried daughter of the deceased Complainant) and Farida (widowed daughter of the deceased Complainant), are the Legal Heirs of the Complainant, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Legal Heirs'.
The original Respondent No. 2 and No. 3, who are the extant Respondent No. 10 and No. 11 (after substitution of the Legal Heirs of the original Respondent No. 1, the deceased Complainant, as Respondent No. 1 to No. 9), Dr. Sopanrao Patil and Dr. Nayana w/o Dr. Sopanrao Patil, were Opposite Party No. 1 and No. 2 before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Doctor 1' and the 'Doctor 2' respectively.
Vide Order dated 9.11.2016 the Doctor 1 and the Doctor 2 were proceeded against ex parte. However, vide subsequent Order dated 20.9.2017 it was inter alia directed that notice be issued again to the Doctor 1 and the Doctor 2.
Vide Order dated 20.9.2017 the Legal Heirs of the Complainant were substituted.
2. A perusal of the daily Orders from 20.9.2017 i.e. from the date the Legal Heirs were ordered to be substituted shows that till the date of the last hearing i.e. till 23.11.2020 the Legal Heirs had not been served by the Insurance Co.
Explicit mention is (inter alia) made in the daily Order of 6.8.2019 that:
"It is seen from the record that Legal Heirs of respondent No. 1 are not yet served. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also not been served."
That is to say, the Legal Heirs and the Doctor 1 and Doctor 2 were yet to be served.
Again, explicit mention is (inter alia) made in the daily Order of 11.11.2020 that:
"As is evident from the previous Orders dated 2.7.2020 and dated 6.8.2019, the legal heirs of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have not been served (afresh).
"The incident is of 1992. The Order of the District Forum is of 2009. The impugned Order of the State Commission is of 2013. The instant Revision Petition is of 2013. We are now in 2020.
"The learned Counsel for the petitioner requests for a brief adjournment of one week to seek instructions."
That is to say, the Legal Heirs and the Doctor 1 and the Doctor 2 were yet to be served, the litigation apropos an incident of 1992 was yet to be decided (in 2020). The learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. sought a week's adjournment to seek instructions.
3. On 23.11.2020, learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. submitted, on instructions, that areasoned order be passed by this Commission.
None was present for the Legal Heirs, w
