Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3620
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Yadav, President, Monika Malik, Member
Priyanka Nag – Appellant
Versus
Lakhnadon Christian Hospital – Respondent
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 03/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashank Pandey
For the Respondents: Mohan Chouksey
Medical negligence cannot be established solely based on an unfavorable treatment outcome; it requires proof of a breach of duty that an ordinarily skilled practitioner would not commit, and the burden of proof rests on the claimant to provide concrete medical evidence.
Headnote:The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleged medical negligence during childbirth, specifically asserting that the improper application of forceps caused cranial injury and subsequent brain damage to the newborn. The complainants sought compensation for treatment expenses and mental agony. The opposite parties contended that the medical procedure was necessitated by intrapartum complications and fetal distress, and that the child’s condition was caused by Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy rather than trauma. The core issues were whether the medical practitioners were negligent and if the alleged injuries were directly attributable to their actions. The Commission applied the principles established in landmark medical negligence cases, determining that the complainants failed to provide expert evidence or substantial material proof indicating that the medical professionals deviated from the standard of care expected of an ordinarily skilled doctor. The complaint is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of medical negligence during childbirth. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defense asserting medical necessity and lack of negligence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. reconciliation of conflicting evidence and factual submissions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. requirements for proving negligence in medical care. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. application of legal standards and precedents regarding clinical negligence. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. final adjudication and dismissal of the claim. (Para 22 , 23) |
O R D E R
( 04.06.2026 )
The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.
This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), is filed by the complainants alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in the treatment of complainant No.2/Master Om Nag.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant No.1, during her pregnancy consulted opposite parties No. 3, 4 and 5. It is submitted that during her pregnancy she had taken medicines prescribed by the opposite parties and she followed all the precautions and underwent all the blood tests and ultra sonography, as directed. On 21.2.2010, the complainant No.1 was admitted at opposite party No.5/Community Health Centre and the doctor on duty there referred her to opposite party No.1/Hospital, where she visited on 22.2.2010, along with complainant No.3. It is submitted that required payments were made in the Hospital of opposite party No.1. Since it was full term pregnancy, the complainant No.1 was having severe pains. The doctors there took her to labour room, where the doctors were discussing that the head of the baby is not coming out and so small cut be made so that baby can come out easily. The opposite party No.2/doctor took forcep and started to pull the baby, as a result of which the ends of forcep went inside baby’s soft skull and it started bleeding.
3. The opposite party No.2/doctor immediately referred the baby to Ayushman Children’s Hospital, Jabalpur. Complainant No.3 took complainant No.2/new born baby to the said Hospital and he observed that there was a big hole on back of his head. In Ayushman Hospital, treatment of complainant No.2, with required investigations, e.g. C.T. Scan of the brain and complete blood tests were done. Since the hole in the head was so deep that he could not be healed, on 3.3.2010, complainant No.2 was shifted to Government Medical College at Jabalpur for further treatment, where he remained uptill 30.3.2010. Thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gharnor on 30.3.2010 for further treatment. When, at the age of one year, growth of complainant No.2 was not satisfactory, complainant No.3 consulted child specialist regarding his son’s behavior and growth and it was informed by the doctors that complainant No.2’s brain is not working as was expected from one year old baby and he was abnormal. It is alleged that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 by not giving proper treatment, were deficient in service. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainants filed instant complaint, seeking relief.
4. The complainant sought Rs.32,98,555/- towards expenses incurred in treatment, medicines, investigations travelling etc. Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.5 lakhs for physical hardship, inconvenience, tension etc. are also sought. In addition to this Rs.50,000/- towards costs of the complaint is also sought. Interest @ 12% per annum is also sought on the said amount along with any other relief, which the Commission deems fit.
5. The complainant No.1 has filed her affidavit along with set of documents, in support of the complaint.
6. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their reply submitted that the doctor who was performing antenatal checkups of the complainant No.1 found something unusual, which warranted a scan and the same was done by Dr. Sisodia. The scan report showed that the complainant No.1 was on full term of
