SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38284

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Daya Chaudhary, President, Vishav Kant Garg, Member
Dayanand Medical College & Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Kirpal Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 994 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ivan Singh Khosa
For the Respondents: K.K. Goyal, Nitin Gupta

Medical professionals and institutions have a duty of care to exercise due diligence in reviewing patient diagnostic reports in a timely manner. Failure to properly assess a donor's fitness for surgery, causing last-minute cancellation and mental harassment, constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Medical Negligence - Deficiency in Service - Unfair Trade Practice - Liability of hospital for actions of medical professionals - Burden of duty of care in pre-operative examination - Medical practitioners must exercise reasonable degree of skill and knowledge - Failure to examine medical reports in time and delaying communication regarding the unsuitability of a donor constitutes deficiency in service. (Paras 12, 19, 20, 21)

(B) Appeals - Scope - Appellate courts should not interfere with the findings of the lower commission unless the decision is perverse or illegal - Evaluation of medical reports and timely procedural actions are essential components of professional duty of care. (Paras 24, 25, 27)

Facts of the case:
A patient suffering from kidney disease sought treatment for a transplant where a family member was intended to be the donor. After the hospital conducted various diagnostic tests and admitted the patient for the procedure, the treating surgeon informed the family on the day before the scheduled surgery that the donor was medically unsuitable due to kidney stones. The patient alleged that these results were known or should have been known through earlier tests conducted at the same facility, and that the last-minute cancellation caused mental agony and financial hardship.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the medical professionals failed to exercise due care in the pre-operative examination process by not scrutinizing reports in a timely manner. This delay forced the patient to bear unnecessary expenses and mental harassment, establishing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the medical staff exercised the required standard of care in reviewing diagnostic reports before admitting the patient for surgery and whether the failure to communicate the donor's medical status well in advance constituted a deficiency in service warranting compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Medical professionals and institutions have a duty of care that extends to the examination of test results and the scheduling of procedures. Failure to act with reasonable diligence in assessing the fitness of a donor, leading to last-minute cancellations, constitutes a breach of the duty of care and qualifies as deficiency in service under the consumer protection framework.

Result: Appeal dismissed; the lower commission's order is affirmed.

Table of Content
1. failure to perform due diligence in pre-operative medical testing constitutes deficiency in service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 17)
2. vicarious liability of hospitals for the professional negligence or careless omissions of their staff. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 13 , 22)
3. legal heirs maintain the right to continue consumer litigation after the complainant's death. (Para 16 , 25)
4. medical professionals have a duty of care to timely review patient diagnostic reports. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23)
5. compensation should be reasonable and aim to reform service provider behavior. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:-

For the appellants : Sh. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate

For respondent No.1 : Sh. K.K. Goyal, Advocate

For respondent No.2 : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate

VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 i.e. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and another, have filed the present Appeal through its Medical Superintendent to challenge the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, Camp Court at Ludhiana (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Kirpal Singh had been Partly Allowed.

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 Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant on suffering with kidney problem had approached OP No.1 for treatment and OP No.2-Doctor, after check-up had advised for kidney transplantation. The Complainant was asked to arrange a person to donate his kidney to him. The Complainant’s real brother, namely, Richpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh (now mentioned as “Rachpal Singh”) had agreed to donate his kidney. After conducting all the necessary tests of said Rachpal Singh, OP No.2 had informed that everything was OK regarding transplantation of the kidney. OP No.2 had also issued Form-4 i.e. certification of medical fitness of living donor. All other formalities regarding kidney transplantation were completed by the OP-Hospital. On the asking of the Hospital, for kidney transplantation the Complainant was admitted in OP-Hospital on 21.04.2016 and had deposited Rs.2,65,000/- as transplantation fee.

4. Thereafter, the date of surgery was fixed as 26.04.2016 but on 25.04.2016, when the Anesthetist visited for giving injection to the Donor and the Complainant, on seeing the medical reports, CT Scan had told that operation could not be conducted under such circumstances as the stone was found there in both kidneys of donor. The Hospital had refunded the remaining amount of Rs.2,44,170/-, out of the deposited amount i.e. after deducting the treatment expenses so incurred. When the Doctor had refused to conduct the transplantation on 25.04.2016, the family member of the Complainant were shocked and confused as they had to arrange the new donor. The Complainant was discharged in the night of 25.04.2016 without conducting the transplantation surgery.

5. All the required tests of the donor had already been conducted on the recommendations of OP No.2-Doctor in the OP No.1-Hospital, which includes Ultrasound KUB, Renal Function Study and other tests on 04.03.2016 and CT Scan, Culture Report tests on 15.03.2016. The OP No.2 Doctor after going through all the tests had also issued certification of medical fitness to the donor on 18.03.2016. OP No.2-Doctor upto the last moment in not disclosing the fact of any hindrance or danger in kidney transplant, had refused to conduct the transplantation, on the pretext of stones in the kidneys of the donor. Said act was not appropriate on the part of the OPs No.1&2 on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top