2025 INSC 1094 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2016

Deep Nursing Home and another … Appellants

Versus

Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KUMAR, J

Manmeet Singh Mattewal, respondent No. 1, lost his wife,

Charanpreet Kaur, and his newborn son within the span of a few hours.

Shiraz Mattewal, respondent No.2, is his older son. Our sympathies

aside, we are called upon to examine the validity of the finding that

Dr. (Mrs.) Kanwarjit Kochhar, appellant No.2, the Obstetrician/

Gynaecologist who conducted the delivery is guilty of medical

negligence and deficiency in service. By judgment dated 31.01.2007 in

Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006, the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh

1

, had found her and

1

for short, ‘the SCDRC’

1

Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, appellant No.1, medically negligent on

the ground that they did not exercise due care and caution in treating

Charanpreet Kaur but held that there was no fault on their part insofar as

the death of the newborn child was concerned. The SCDRC directed

them to pay ₹20,26,000/- to the complainants, Manmeet Singh Mattewal

and Shiraz Mattewal. However, as they were covered by the insurance

policy issued by New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No.

3 herein, the company was directed to pay 20,00,000/- and the balance

₹

was directed to be paid by them. Interest @ 9 % was awarded if the

amount was not paid in one month. Costs of 10,000/-

₹

were also

awarded.

2.Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar filed

First Appeal No. 158 of 2007 before the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, New Delhi

2

, assailing the SCDRC’s judgment.

First Appeal No. 193 of 2007 was filed separately by New India

Assurance Company Limited. However, by order dated 09.05.2012, the

NCDRC dismissed both appeals. Therein, the NCDRC came to the

conclusion that no liability would attach to Deep Nursing Home,

Chandigarh, and pinned the entire responsibility of paying 20,26,000/-

₹

upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. As 6,00,000/- had already been deposited

₹

pursuant to its order dated 12.04.2007 and was withdrawn by Manmeet

2

for short, ‘the NCDRC’

2

Singh Mattewal, the NCDRC directed her to pay the balance sum of

14,26,000/- in 6 weeks along with costs of 14,000/-. In the passing,

₹ ₹

we may note that the NCDRC reserved judgment in the appeals on

27.07.2010 but the order was pronounced by it nearly two years later, on

09.05.2012!

3.Despite the clean chit given to it by the NCDRC, Deep Nursing

Home, Chandigarh, joined Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in filing the special

leave petition from which the present appeal arises. By order dated

10.02.2014, this Court directed a further sum of 4,00,000/- to be paid to

₹

Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Shiraz Mattewal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2

herein. Leave was granted by this Court on 15.02.2016.

4.At the outset we may note that, in Universal Sompo General

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand Jain and another

3

, this Court

affirmed that a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution

is not the proper remedy against an appellate order passed by the

NCDRC. However, as this matter was entertained and has been pending

on the file of this Court for over twelve years, we do not think it proper to

relegate the appellants at this late stage to the alternative remedy under

Article 226 of the Constitution before the jurisdictional High Court.

5.We may now note the contents of Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006

filed before the SCDRC: Charanpreet Kaur, a co-operative bank

3

(2024) 9 SCC 148

3

manager on deputation as a lecturer in the Punjab Institute of

Cooperative Training, was aged about 32 years and was earning a

monthly salary of 25,682/-. She was in the 8

₹

th

month of her pregnancy

when she started consulting Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar of Deep Nursing

Home, Chandigarh. According to the complaint case, she visited the

nursing home several times and also underwent the tests prescribed

from time to time. Photocopies of the ultrasound tests done on

08.08.2005, 11.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 were filed in this regard. It was

stated that the couple visited the nursing home on 10.11.2005,

29.11.2005 and 09.12.2005 for check-ups and were assured that all was

well and that it would be a normal delivery. A copy of the prescription

dated 10.11.2005, with entries, was also filed. Charanpreet Kaur was

admitted on 21.12.2005 at about 11.00 AM for delivery. However, the

newborn child died instantly after birth, which took place at 02.00 AM on

the next day. It was alleged that the nursing home was ‘inadequately and

ill equipped’ to handle emergencies during deliveries and there were no

facilities available in that regard.

6.According to the averments made, the mother was informed about

the death of the newborn child which resulted in her going into shock

and caused profuse bleeding. It was alleged that no blood was readily

available in the nursing home for transfusion and the delay in shifting her

to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,

4

Chandigarh

4

, at 05.30 AM resulted in her being declared ‘brought dead’

on arrival. It was further alleged that the staff of Deep Nursing Home did

not bring any reference papers or history sheet to facilitate her treatment

at the PGI. The van in which she was taken was also ill-equipped and it

was claimed that no doctor accompanied her in the said van. It was

alleged that Dr. GS Kochhar, the husband of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, who

represented Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, chose to follow the van in

his car separately and, therefore, there was no qualified doctor in the

van.

7.Thus, the specific allegations levelled against the nursing home

and the doctor were that the nursing home was not equipped to handle

emergencies and complications during deliveries; the record of the

treatment was fabricated later to escape prosecution; the blood group of

Charanpreet Kaur was not checked and this led to delay in blood

transfusions; the death of the newborn child was also due to negligence;

there was negligence in causing trauma to Charanpreet Kaur by

informing her of the death of the newborn which resulted in shock and

bleeding; and the nursing home had no stock of blood readily available

for transfusion. The complainants sought compensation of 95,21,000/-

₹

along with interest @ 18% per annum, medical expenses of 10,000/-

₹

4

for short, ‘the PGI’

5

and litigation expenses of 11,000/-. This complaint case was filed on

₹

11.05.2006.

8.A lengthy written statement was filed by the opposite parties, viz.,

Deep Nursing Home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. Therein, they pointed

out that Manmeet Singh Mattewal had earlier reported the matter to the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, and an enquiry was

conducted by a Medical Board, consisting of experts, to ascertain

whether there was any medical negligence and the Board had negated

the same. It was stated that Charanpreet Kaur had suffered atonic Post

Partum Haemorrhage

5

which proved to be catastrophic as she did not

respond to the treatment administered in the nursing home. It was stated

that PPH is a failure of the uterus to properly contract after the child is

born resulting in bleeding within the uterus, which cannot be controlled. It

was asserted that proper treatment was given as per protocol but

despite the same, she did not respond and ultimately died. Details were

given of the experience and expertise of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the

well-equipped status of the nursing home. It was stated that Dr. GS

Kochhar, who ran the nursing home, was a renowned anaesthetist.

Charanpreet Kaur was stated to have come to the nursing home on

10.11.2005 along with her mother and another person. Her date of

delivery was approximated to be around 02.01.2006. As she wanted to

5

for short, ‘PPH’

6

have her delivery at the nursing home with Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, she

was advised to continue with the intake of Iron and Calcium. It was

stated that Charanpreet Kaur did not show the reports of her earlier

check-ups, despite being asked by Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, and neither

did she show records of her previous delivery. It was further stated that

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar came to know from the hushed tones of

Charanpreet Kaur that there was some problem in the delivery of the first

child, but this was not divulged to her. She claimed that she later came

to know that the first child was autistic, but this was also not disclosed to

her. She asserted that, had this fact come to her knowledge earlier, she

might have refused to undertake the delivery, as there were more

chances of the second child having congenital abnormalities if the first

child had them.

9.The written statement then went on to state as follows:

Charanpreet Kaur’s check-ups were on 29.11.2005 and 09.12.2005. As

per their advice, Charanpreet Kaur had informed them that she had

consulted a cardiologist but she did not show any report thereof. Again,

on 16.12.2005, Charanpreet Kaur came for a routine check-up and was

advised to continue with her earlier medication. On 21.12.2005, at about

11.00 AM, Charanpreet Kaur was admitted in the nursing home as she

was suffering from back pain, but she was not in labour. Labour was

induced and she was making good progress. At about 01.00 AM on

7

22.12.2005, she was having strong contractions. Dr. RP Bansal, a

qualified paediatrician, was present with the patient from 02.15 AM

onwards. The delivery took place at 02.40 AM, but the newborn child did

not cry. The baby was handed over to the paediatrician for resuscitation

and oxygen was administered through a nasal tube. However, all efforts

to save the baby failed and he was declared dead at 03.10 AM. The

mother was not informed about the death of the baby. The near relations

were informed about it and were advised to get an autopsy done to

ascertain the exact cause of death of the child. However, they refused to

do so.

10.Details were furnished of the treatment given to Charanpreet Kaur

post-delivery and it was stated that there were no placental tissue or

membranes in her uterus. The cervix was also examined and no tear

was found. However, as there was still bleeding, her relations were

asked to secure two units of blood from the blood bank in Sector 37,

Chandigarh. Dr. GS Kochhar telephonically informed the blood bank to

keep the same ready without delay. Transfusion was commenced at

about 04.15 AM. Owing to the complications which had arisen, two more

doctors, viz., a senior Gynaecologist and a General Surgeon were

contacted, and they reached the nursing home at 04.00 AM. All the

doctors present conducted a thorough examination and opined that the

patient was suffering from uterine inertia PPH and it was decided that

8

she should be sent to the PGI. The staff of the septic labour room at the

PGI were informed in advance to be ready to receive and treat her. She

was shifted in an ambulance with running blood transfusion and an

Ambu bag (oxygen). Two staff nurses from the nursing home

accompanied her while Dr. GS Kochhar went there in his own car. He

personally took the patient on a stretcher to the septic labour room. On

his request, completion of the other formalities prior to admission were

kept on hold. During the journey, the patient suffered a bout of bleeding

and was in deep shock. After reaching the PGI, she was examined but

no pulse and heart beat were palpable. Despite resuscitative measures,

she did not survive. The patient developed uterine inertia PPH which is a

disorder with poor prognosis and high mortality. Uterine Artery

Embolization facility was available only in the PGI in the whole of North

India. The blood group of Charanpreet Kaur was checked and the same

was written on the prescription dated 10.11.2005 itself, which had been

filed with the complaint. It was denied that the nursing home was ill-

equipped to handle emergencies during deliveries. It was asserted that

there was no delay in shifting the patient to the PGI.

11.No rejoinder was filed by the complainants to the above written

statement.

12.The SCDRC, vide its judgment dated 31.01.2007, found fault with

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar for not getting Charanpreet Kaur’s blood group

9

identified at the time of delivery and in arranging for transfusion by

keeping blood supply ready. Reference was made to a textbook on

Obstetrics and Gynaecology by the SCDRC and it was opined that, in a

case of PPH, excessive bleeding after child birth is the single largest

cause of maternal deaths worldwide. The SCDRC came to the

conclusion that the nursing home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar wasted

almost two hours in getting blood and cross-matching it and this led to

deterioration of the patient’s condition. Examining the averments in the

written statement, the SCDRC found fault with Dr. GS Kochhar for not

accompanying the patient in the ambulance to the PGI. The SCDRC

went to the extent of doubting his very presence there. The conclusion

drawn by the SCDRC was that Charanpreet Kaur was already dead

when she was taken to the PGI and this was done only to dump her

dead body there. The affidavit filed by Dr. GS Kochhar was held to be

a false and fabricated document and the SCDRC categorically recorded

a finding that he did not go to the PGI. Reference was made to the

Report dated 18.08.2006 of the Medical Board at Government Medical

College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, which opined that ‘there

did not appear any gross medical negligence in the management of the

patient by the treating doctors’ but the same was discarded on the

ground that it was a short report without reasons for recording such a

finding. The SCDRC held that it was certainly a case of negligence on

10

the part of the nursing home and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and they had

failed to exercise due care and caution in treating Charanpreet Kaur,

even if it was presumed that there was no fault on their part insofar as

the death of the child was concerned. The SCDRC, accordingly, directed

payment of compensation as stated hereinabove.

13.In appeal, as demonstrated by the impugned order, the NCDRC

observed that Charanpreet Kaur’s death was investigated quite

thoroughly by successive Medical Boards, appointed specifically for that

purpose on complaints of gross negligence made by Manmeet Singh

Mattewal to various authorities of the State Government. Before the

NCDRC, it was stated on behalf of the appellants that the delivery was

complete only at about 03.00 AM after the patient expelled the placenta.

It was contended that in a normal delivery, as was the case here, the

uterus would gradually contract on its own after the delivery and the

bleeding would stop but, in this case, the uterus did not contract fully and

went into a phase of relaxation after the initial contraction. It was stated

that, the unusual nature of the bleeding could be known only after it was

verified that it was not from any tear in the vagina or the cervix or from

the site of the episiotomy and all this took some time, as detailed in the

medical record. It could be concluded only around 03.15 AM that the

uterus had not contracted. It was pointed out that, in the course of a

normal delivery, units of blood are not kept ready for transfusion and,

11

therefore, the assumption of the SCDRC, that there was delay and that

the time taken to get the blood was two hours, was factually incorrect. It

was asserted that the patient’s medical record showed that the

transfusion was started in less than an hour of the diagnosis of the

possible cause of bleeding, i.e., atonic uterus. It was also pointed out

that the SCDRC’s conclusion that the patient’s blood group was not

recorded was erroneous. The first page of the medical record showed

that the patient’s blood group was noted right at the beginning but before

starting blood transfusion, every unit of blood has to be necessarily

cross-matched with that of the patient, and this was done in the present

case also. It was asserted that there was no delay in shifting the patient

to the PGI and that all possible care was taken during that process. She

was accompanied by two nurses from the nursing home with a unit of

blood being transfused simultaneously on each arm along with oxygen

supply. Dr. GS Kochhar preceded the van in his car to ensure that there

was no delay in taking her to the septic labour room. It was pointed out

that five Medical Boards had examined the case record and concluded

that, neither in dealing with the newborn’s asphyxia nor in treating the

mother for the sudden complication of atonic PPH, Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar

had committed any act of medical negligence. All the experts who

constituted these Boards found that there was no negligence on her part

or on the part of the nursing home.

12

14.The NCDRC dealt with each of the Medical Board Reports in turn,

viz., the first Report dated 23.01.2006 by a Board of four doctors from

the Government Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh; the second Report

dated 20.03.2006 of a Board of five doctors from the Government

Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh; the third Report

dated 03.04.2006 of the reconstituted Committee of four doctors from

the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh;

and the fourth Report dated 18.08.2006 of a Committee of seven doctors

constituted under the Chairmanship of the Director, Health Services,

Union Territory, Chandigarh. The undated fifth and final Report of four

doctors was also from the Government Medical College and Hospital,

Sector 32, Chandigarh, but it was not taken note of by the NCDRC.

15.The NCDRC, thereupon, looked into medical literature and

copiously extracted from such literature in its order. It noted that

Charanpreet Kaur was under the medical care of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar

from the 32

nd

week of her pregnancy through childbirth. It was noted that

she had gone to some other Obstetrician during the earlier part of her

second pregnancy. Noting the claim made by Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar that

she was not told details of the delivery of the first child but her suspicion

that there was some problem therewith, the NCDRC observed that it was

the minimum professional requirement for her to have gathered such

information. The NCDRC also found fault with the medical record

13

maintained by the nursing home after Charanpreet Kaur’s first visit. It

was noted that Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar had claimed that the prior medical

record was not given to her and the NCDRC opined that she had failed

to ascertain information which had crucial implications, i.e., with regard

to Charanpreet Kaur’s haematological status. We may observe, at this

stage, that the NCDRC seems to have visualized itself in the role of a

medical professional and expressed purported expert opinions on how

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar ought to have acted as an Obstetrician when

Charanpreet Kaur came to her initially and as to how she should have

gone about prescribing tests!

16.In effect, the NCDRC opined that, though all the Medical Boards

had opined that there did not appear to be any gross medical negligence

in the management of the patient by the treating doctors after the

delivery, the same did not mean that there was no medical negligence

before the delivery. As per the NCDRC, there were several instances of

departure from standard protocols in the antenatal care of the patient on

the part of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar as she failed to insist on the patient

getting standard haematological investigations done. According to the

NCDRC, no case of tortious medical negligence was made out against

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in handling Charanpreet Kaur’s labour, including

the delivery, the management of the baby, the baby’s problem and the

post-delivery management at the nursing home, but there was enough

14

evidence as well as expert opinion to hold that antenatal management of

Charanpreet Kaur by Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, particularly, in respect of

necessary haematological and cardiological investigations, was not in

accordance with the standard protocols that an Obstetrician of average

skill would adopt. It further held that no case of medical negligence/

deficiency in service was made out against the nursing home as there

was nothing in the Medical Boards’ Reports on this aspect and the

complainants did not lead any reliable evidence in support of their

allegations in this regard. The NCDRC, therefore, concluded that no

liability could attach to the nursing home. The NCDRC noted that,

pursuant to its direction on 12.04.2007, Manmeet Singh Mattewal had

withdrawn ₹6,00,000/- deposited by the nursing home and the insurance

company and directed that the balance amount due be paid by Dr.

Kanwarjit Kochhar.

17.It would be apposite at this stage to note the contents of the

Medical Boards/Committees’ Reports. The first Report dated 23.01.2006

was furnished by the Board of doctors from Government Hospital, Sector

16, Chandigarh. This Board comprised Dr. Rupinder Kaur, Dr. Vidhu

Bhasin and Dr. N.K. Kaushal. After perusing the record, the Board

opined that the patient had died because of severe atonic PPH which did

not respond to the treatment given at the nursing home. It was recorded

that the treatment given was as recommended and that blood is not

15

arranged beforehand for normal deliveries. It was noted that the blood

samples were sent for cross-matching at 03.15 AM; that the patient went

into shock at 03.45 AM, that blood was brought from Rotary and Blood

Bank Society, Sector 37, Chandigarh; that blood transfusion was started

at 04.15 AM on both arms; and she was then referred to the PGI.

18.The second Report dated 20.03.2006 was from a Board of doctors

of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.

The doctors in this Board were Professor Veena Parmar, HoD of

Paediatrics; Professor Anju Huria, HoD of Obstetrics & Gynaecology;

Professor K.K. Gombar, HoD of Anaesthesia; Professor A.K. Attri, HoD

of Surgery; and Professor Harsh Mohan, Medical Superintendent and

HoD of Pathology (Chairman). The conclusion of the Board was that the

patient had atonic PPH which was managed conservatively but without

success. It was noted that PPH is a known complication of delivery and

accounted for 8% of maternal mortality in developed countries. The

Board opined that different patients may cope differently with blood loss

in PPH - a healthy woman would be far more tolerant to blood loss of 30-

50% when compared to a woman with either pre-existing anaemia or

underlying cardiac complications or pre-eclampsia. The Board opined

that it could not be said with certainty from the record whether this

patient had anaemia or hypotension and shock before delivery but in the

presence of either or both of these conditions, atonic PPH was more

16

likely to be catastrophic. This final conclusion of the Board did not indict

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar but left the question open as it was not clear from

the record whether the patient had any of these conditions before the

delivery.

19.The third Report dated 03.04.2006 was submitted by a Committee

of doctors from the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector

32, Chandigarh, comprising Professor A.K. Attri, HoD of Surgery

(Chairman); Dr. Satinder Gombar, Professor and HoD of Anaesthesia;

Dr. Anju Huria, HoD of Obstetrics & Gynaecology; and Dr. Suksham

Jain, Assistant Professor of Paediatrics. This Committee, after perusing

the record submitted by the Office of the Director, Health and Welfare,

Chandigarh Administration, discussed the previous reports submitted by

the teams of doctors from the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh,

and the Government Medial College and Hospital, Sector 32,

Chandigarh, and upon perusal of the medical record and the medical

reports and after thorough deliberations, the Committee opined that

there was no gross medical negligence in the management of the

patient.

20.The fourth Report from the Government Medical College and

Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh was dated 18.08.2006. This report was

consequential to the letter dated 15.06.2006 of the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh. This Committee

17

consisted of Dr. Manjit Singh Bains, Director, Health Services, General

Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh (Chairman); Dr. Usha Bishnoi, Medical

Superintendent, General Hospital, Chandigarh; Professor Harsh Mohan,

Medical Superintendent, Government Medical College and Hospital,

Sector 32, Chandigarh; Professor K.K. Gombar, HoD of Anaesthesia;

Professor Veena Parmar, HoD of Paediatrics; Professor Anju Huria, HoD

of Gynaecology.; and Dr. A.K. Attri, HoD of Surgery. The Committee

deliberated on the issue addressed in the letter and considered the

records of the deceased mother and child provided by the police

department. The Committee also discussed the reports submitted

previously by the teams of doctors from the General Hospital, Sector 16,

Chandigarh, and the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector

32, Chandigarh. After considering the said records and reports, the

Committee opined that there did not appear to be any gross medical

negligence in the management of the patients by the treating doctors.

21. The fifth and final undated Report was also from the Government

Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. This Committee

comprised Professor A.K. Attri, HoD of Surgery (Chairman); Dr. Satinder

Gombar, Professor and HoD of Anaesthesia; Dr. Anju Huria, HoD of

Obstetrics and Gynaecology; and Dr. Suksham Jain, Assistant Professor

of Paediatrics. The Committee perused the whole record submitted by

the Office of the Director, Health and Welfare, Chandigarh

18

Administration, and discussed the previous reports submitted by the

teams of doctors. After thorough deliberations and perusal of the medical

records and the reports, the Committee opined that there was no gross

medical negligence in the management of the patients.

22.Significantly, all the above reports came about upon the instigation

and at the behest of Manmeet Singh Mattewal himself, who seems to

have approached various authorities voicing his grievance against Dr.

Kanwarjit Kochhar and the nursing home in relation to the death of his

wife and child. However, except for one report which, owing to lack of

sufficient data, left one question open, i.e., the possible pre-existing

conditions that may have led to the death of Charanpreet Kaur, none of

the reports held Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar negligent. Further, given the

settled legal position that every failure in the treatment of a patient does

not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence, we find

that the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted

these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance in favour of

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, as none of them found any medical negligence

on her part. As already noted hereinbefore, these bodies were

constituted at the behest of Manmeet Singh Mattewal himself and he

cannot, therefore, fight shy of the conclusions and findings rendered by

them.

19

23.As pointed out in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and

another

6

, simply because a patient did not favourably respond to the

treatment given by a physician or if a surgery failed, the doctor cannot be

held liable per se by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This edict

was reiterated in Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq

7

wherein, it was

pointed out that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an

act or omission which would result in harm or injury to a patient as the

reputation of that professional would be at stake and a single failure may

cost him or her dear in that lapse. It was also pointed out that

sometimes, despite best efforts, the treatment by a doctor may fail but

that does not mean that the doctor or surgeon must be held guilty of

medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest

that he or she is. It was also pointed out that Courts and Consumer Fora

are not experts in medical science and must not substitute their own

views over that of specialists. While acknowledging that the medical

profession had been commercialised to some extent and there were

doctors who depart from their Hippocratic Oath for their selfish ends of

making money, this Court held that the entire medical fraternity cannot

be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because

of some bad apples.

6

(2005) 6 SCC 1

7

(2009) 3 SCC 1

20

24.On the same lines, in Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani and

others vs. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences and others

8

,

it was held that unless a complainant is able to establish a specific

course of conduct, suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care,

it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical

judgment of the doctor on the line of treatment which was administered

and, in the absence of such material disclosing medical negligence, the

Court cannot form a view at variance, as every death in the

institutionalised environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount

to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due

medical care.

25.In any event, the NCDRC’s ultimate conclusion was that there was

negligence on the part of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar only in the antenatal

care and management of Charanpreet Kaur. More importantly, the

NCDRC rendered a clear finding that there was no medical negligence in

the handling of Charanpreet Kaur’s labour, including her delivery; the

management of the baby’s problem; and the post-delivery management

at the nursing home. These conclusions, arrived at by the NCDRC, not

only reversed the findings of the SCDRC but also turned the very case

put forth by the complainants on its head. In fact, the NCDRC decided

the matter by building up a new case altogether!

8

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1608

21

26.The specific claim of Manmeet Singh Mattewal in Complaint Case

No. 56 of 2006 was that there was medical negligence on the part of

Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the nursing home in the post-delivery

treatment only, as sufficient facilities were not available in the nursing

home to deal with post-delivery emergencies, and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar

failed to take adequate care and caution after the delivery to save the life

of the patient. He categorically asserted that the nursing home was

‘inadequately and ill equipped’ to handle emergencies during deliveries

and there were no facilities available in that regard. His further allegation

was that Charanpreet Kaur was informed about the death of the

newborn child which resulted in her going into shock and caused profuse

bleeding. However, this was not proved and neither the SCDRC nor the

NCDRC recorded a finding on this aspect. His further allegation was that

there was delay in arranging for blood transfusions and there was

negligence during the transfer of Charanpreet Kaur from the nursing

home to the PGI. He made no allegations whatsoever to the effect that

the antenatal care and management of Charanpreet Kaur were deficient

in any manner. On the contrary, he specifically asserted that various

tests were prescribed by Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and Charanpreet Kaur

underwent all such tests.

27.The SCDRC had accepted Manmeet Singh Mattewal’s case and

held that negligence was attributable to Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the

22

nursing home in relation to the post-delivery care and treatment of

Charanpreet Kaur. However, this finding was reversed by the NCDRC,

as is evident from the impugned order, wherein the NCDRC held in clear

terms that no liability attached to the nursing home and it was Dr.

Kanwarjit Kochhar who was to be held responsible on the ground of

medical negligence in the antenatal care and management. The specific

finding of the NCDRC was that Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar had not prescribed

the requisite haematological tests for Charanpreet Kaur.

28.This was never the case of Manmeet Singh Mattewal. The entire

focus of the NCDRC, however, was only upon the antenatal care and

management of the patient and its pinpointed findings were also in

relation to the said period and treatment only. The NCDRC’s observation

that there were several instances of departure from standard protocols in

the antenatal management of the patient, such as, not getting proper

tests done, and its final finding that no case of tortious medical

negligence was made out against Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in handling

Charanpreet Kaur’s labour, her delivery, management of the baby and

his problem, and the post-delivery management of both of them at the

nursing home, demonstrated and settled in no uncertain terms that the

case put forth by Manmeet Singh Mattewal was not proved and

established. Once his case, as pleaded and projected, was not made

out, the NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on his behalf

23

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

(See A.V.G.P. Chettiar & Sons and others vs. T. Palanisamy

Gounder

9

, Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and another vs. Lodha

Crown Buildmart (P) Ltd.

10

, Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. LRs. vs.

Mohd. Mahim Ali and others

11

).

29.Useful reference may also be made to the observations of this

Court in Trojan and Company vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar

12

, as

long back as in the year 1953, that it is well settled that the decision of a

case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties

and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Again, in Ram Sarup

Gupta (Dead) by LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others

13

,

this Court observed that it is well settled that no party should be

permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and that all necessary and

material facts should be pleaded by a party in support of the case set up

by it. It was pointed out that the object and purpose of pleadings is to

enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet as, in order

9

(2002) 5 SCC 337

10

(2024) 4 SCC 230

11

2024 SCC OnLine SC 4083

12

(1953) 1 SCC 456

13

(1987) 2 SCC 555

24

to have a fair trial, it is imperative that a party should settle the essential

material facts so that the other party may not be taken by surprise.

30.Viewed thus, the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in

building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings.

However, its finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the

post-delivery treatment of Charanpreet Kaur have attained finality as no

separate appeal was preferred by the complainants. The impugned

order passed by the NCDRC, confirming the SCDRC’s judgment on the

new grounds made out by it, therefore, cannot be sustained.

31.The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated

09.05.2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal Nos. 158 and193 of 2007, as

well as the judgment dated 31.01.2007 passed by the State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, in

Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006. In consequence, the said complaint

case shall stand dismissed.

Manmeet Singh Mattewal, respondent No. 1, shall return and

refund the sum of 10,00,000/- received by him, pursuant to the orders

₹

passed in this litigation, to Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, Dr. GS Kochhar and

New India Assurance Company Ltd. in monthly instalments of

1,00,000/- each. The first three instalments, aggregating to

₹

3,00,000/-, shall be paid to New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the

₹

25

balance sum of 7,00,000/- shall be paid to Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and

₹

Dr. GS Kochhar under acknowledgement, as we are informed that the

nursing home is no longer in existence.

In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.

……................................, J.

SANJAY KUMAR

……................................., J.

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

September 9, 2025

New Delhi.

26