Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6725
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, CJ, Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, ACJ
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sonia Gupta – Respondent
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 | C.C. No. 47 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Dhivya Jerath
For the Respondents: Sh. Binderjit Singh, Sh. Vivek Singla, Sh. B.S. Taunque
Free medical services do not qualify as 'consumer' transactions unless a consideration is paid; thus, allegations of medical negligence must be substantiated with evidence demonstrating negligence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Medical negligence and deficiency in service - Appeal dismissed against prior dismissal by District Commission - Allegations of negligence regarding surgical delivery and subsequent acute kidney injury due to the actions of medical staff were unproven - Expert medical boards found no negligence - Claim for compensation based on non-consumer status disputed. (Paras 12, 22, 34)
(B) Definition of Consumer - Free medical services provided do not fall under 'consumer' if no consideration is paid; exceptions apply as per Supreme Court interpretation of the Act regarding beneficiaries.
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged negligence in a surgical delivery resulting in acute kidney injury of his wife, leading to her eventual death. Key points of contention involved the medical treatment received at a government hospital being considered free service.
Findings of Court:
The complainant failed to provide evidence of negligence, and expert medical boards exonerated the medical respondents from wrongdoing. The Commission upheld the dismissal of the case originally passed by the District Commission.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the quality of medical care constituted negligence and whether the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no factual basis for claims of negligence, supported by medical documentation and expert opinions indicating that the injury was not caused by the surgical procedure. The court concluded that patients receiving free treatment at government hospitals do not fall under the Consumer definition unless a nominal fee is charged, affirming the necessity for proof of negligence in medical malpractice claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellant/Complainant-Balwinder Singh has filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that Veerpal Kaur, the wife of the Complainant was pregnant and on 23.09.2016, due to labour pain, she alongwith her mother went to Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo at about 7.30 am where OPs No.1&2 after examining her, had informed that she was going to deliver the child within few minutes and was admitted. They informed that there was no medical complications in the delivery. During this process, they obtained her signatures on some blank papers and also demanded Rs.10,000/- for the said procedure. Within 30 minutes of her admission, she gave birth to a baby girl. It was alleged that in the morning of 24.09.2016, OPs No.1&2 had informed that suddenly the condition of the wife of the Complainant was deteriorated due to some latent disease and referred the case of Veerpal Kaur to Faridkot Medical College. However, intentionally they had not informed him that the condition of the patient had deteriorated due to negligence of Dr. Sonia Gupta-OP No.1 as she had caused acute kidney injury upon the patient during the process of surgical delivery (LSCS). OP No.2 had accompanied Veerpal Kaur in an Ambulance when the patient was shifted to Medical Hospital, Faridkot. OP No.2 had further demanded Rs.5,000/- on the way to Medical Hospital, Faridkot but they had refused to pay the same. However, OP No.2 had refused to go to Faridkot and in the way get off from the Ambulance at Bathinda. Said Veerpal Kaur was admitted by the Complainant in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot at 12.30 pm. On examination by the Doctors at Faridkot, they found some acute kidney injury caused by OP No.1 during the surgery. There was no improvement in the health of Veerpal Kaur during the period from 24.09.2016 and 25.09.2016, therefore, the Complainant had decided to take her to some higher medical institute at Ludhiana and got discharged her from the said Hospital. He took the patient to SPS Hospital, Ludhiana on 26.09.2016 and got admitted there. Due to acute kidney injury, the condition of Veerpal Kaur was not improved and on 31.10.2016, she had expired. As per the Death Summary of SPS Hospital, Ludhiana, the cause of death of the patient was Post LSCS and Acute Kidney Injury.
4. It was further alleged that OP No.1 and OP No.2 were responsible for the kidney injury to Veerpal Kaur caused due to the carelessness and negligence in performing the surgery. Such negligent act on the part of the OPs No.1&2 caused mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, loss of love and affection to family. The Complainant had been facing a lot of difficulties in upbringing his children after the death of Veerpal Kaur. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’, ‘unfair trade practice’ and also a case of ‘medical negligence’, it was prayed in the Complaint that for such an act, he be granted a compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. He had also demanded Rs.22,000/- towards the litigation expenses.
5. During the course of proceedings, the Counsel for the Complainant had suffered a statement for deleting the name of OP No.3 from the array of parties, hence, the name of OP No.3 was deleted.
6. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint to OPs No.1, 2, 4 & 5, OP No.4 had not appeared, therefore, OP No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte. However, the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 5 had filed their separate written statements.
7. OP No.1
