NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/2243/2019 (Against the Order dated 15th July 2019 in Appeal No. 525/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi)

WITH NC/IA/16307/2019 (STAY)

NC/IA/16308/2019 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/2719/2024 (DIRECTIONS)

INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL PRESENT ADDRESS - SATITA VIHAR, DELHI MATHURA ROAD, , NEW DELHI-110076 .......Petitioner(s)

Versus RAJ KARAN SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O. LT. SH. DORI SINGH, R/O. FLAT NO. T-2, PALIKA NAILAY, R.K.

ASHRAM MARG, GOLE MARKET , NEW DELHI-110001 .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

DR. LALIT BHASIN, ADVOCATE (VC) MS. NINA GUPTA & MS. VISHALI SIVAGANNAM (VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

DR. DEEPAK KOHLI, ADVOCATE MR. MOHD. SHARIQ, ADVOCATE DATED: 17/04/2026

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed against the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in First Appeal No. 525 of 2012, whereby the compensation awarded by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum–VII, Delhi was enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging medical negligence on part of the Petitioner Hospital in the treatment of his daughter, who was suffering from End Stage Renal Disease and was undergoing dialysis. It is the case of the Respondents that on 23.12.2006, while undergoing dialysis, the Patient and the Complainant noticed that the dilator used for that procedure was not washed with water properly and even when the same was informed to the technician, he continued the dialysis. Afterwards, the patient started feeling breathlessness and eventually fainted and went into Coma. The patient then stayed in the ICU for 47 days till her death on 08.02.2007.

3. The District Forum, while observing that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctors, nevertheless awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation, purportedly on account of deficiency attributable to the hospital staff. Aggrieved by the quantum, the Respondent preferred First Appeal before the State Commission, which enhanced the compensation to Rs.

10,00,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved by such Order steeply enhancing the compensation awarded, the Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition. The grounds raised in the Revision Petition primarily challenge the legality and correctness of the Ld. State Commission’s order, especially on the issue of enhancement of compensation. A central plank of the Petitioner’s argument is that the finding of negligence is unsustainable in law because it is contrary to the expert medical opinion of the Safdarjung Hospital Medical Board dated 04.12.2010, which clearly opined that the patient was properly managed and immediate resuscitative measures were taken. The Petitioner contends that this opinion, having been sought at the instance of the Complainant and having remained unchallenged, ought to have been treated as conclusive or at least highly persuasive.

5. Another significant ground relates to jurisdictional and procedural errors, particularly the argument that the Ld. State Commission’s Order is invalid for want of proper quorum, having been passed by a single member in violation of statutory requirements under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Petitioner also assails the reasoning of the Ld. State Commission in treating negligence as having ‘attained finality’, arguing that the Ld. District Forum itself did not return a clear finding of medical negligence but only awarded compensation on a vague notion of minor deficiency. The State Commission erroneously treated this as a concluded finding of negligence and enhanced compensation to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Consequently, the enhancement of compensation