Supreme Court Criticises NCDRC For Inventing New Case Of Medical Negligence In Appeal; Orders Complainant To Refund Rs 10 Lakh To Doctors

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep. 9) ordered a complainant to refund the ₹10 lakhs compensation received, holding that the NCDRC had wrongly awarded it by inventing a case of 'antenatal negligence' against the doctors, even though the original complaint was confined to 'post-delivery negligence'.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and SC Sharma passed the order reiterating that it would be impermissible to build a new case which was never pleaded in the pleadings/complaint. Since the NCDRC had gone beyond its jurisdiction when it faulted the doctor for alleged “antenatal negligence” despite the complainant's case being restricted to “post-delivery negligence”, the Court held that NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding compensation for “antenatal negligence”.

“Once his case, as pleaded and projected, was not made out, the NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on his behalf and in pinning negligence and liability upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in the context of antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case. In doing so, the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction as it was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings in the complaint case and build up a new case on its own.”, the Court said.

The case arose after the complainant's wife died of atonic Post-Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) shortly after delivering a stillborn child at the appellant's nursing home. Allegations were made that the facility was ill-equipped, delayed arranging blood transfusions, mishandled the transfer to PGI Chandigarh, and worsened the situation by immediately disclosing the child's death.

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) had initially held the nursing home negligent and awarded compensation of over ₹20 lakhs.

On appeal, however, the NCDRC absolved the nursing home of liability and ruled there was no negligence in delivery or postnatal care. Yet, it introduced a new case holding the doctor ti be negligent in failing to prescribe certain antenatal tests. It fastened the entire liability solely on the doctor, which was never pleaded in the complainant's case.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that “the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings.”

The Court observed that once the NCDRC had held there was no negligence in the delivery or post-delivery treatment of the complainant's wife, the matter had attained finality, especially since the complainants did not file a separate appeal, thereby closing the case.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: Deep Nursing Home and another Versus Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 883

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepanshu, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shivam Jasra, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Drouhn Garg, Adv. Mr. Rajivkumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satinder Gulati, Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Shubham Arora, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ipshita Gupta, Adv.