Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-001662-001662 – 2016 |
| Diary Number | 31095/2012 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Precedent Value | Binding on consumer dispute commissions and trial courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules NCDRC’s order in First Appeal Nos. 158 & 193 of 2007 and SCDRC’s order in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006 |
| Type of Law | Consumer protection law; medical negligence |
| Questions of Law | Whether a consumer forum can decide a complaint on grounds not pleaded by the parties? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that consumer fora must adjudicate strictly on the pleadings and cannot build a new case beyond what the complainant has alleged. It reaffirmed that a finding of negligence must correspond to the case as pleaded and proved, and that expert medical board reports cannot be second-guessed by tribunals. The NCDRC transgressed its jurisdiction by attributing antenatal negligence that was never pleaded. The impugned orders were set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The respondent’s wife and newborn died after a normal delivery at Deep Nursing Home. A complaint alleged post-delivery negligence—lack of blood, delay in transfusion and transfer to PGI. SCDRC found negligence and awarded compensation, NCDRC reversed part of that, attributing antenatal care lapses. Five medical boards unanimously found no gross negligence. Supreme Court held that NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction and quashed both orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions and subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, other tribunals in consumer and medical negligence matters |
| Overrules | NCDRC’s order in First Appeal Nos. 158 & 193 of 2007; SCDRC’s judgment in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Consumer fora cannot base their decisions on grounds or periods not pleaded by the complainant.
- Pleadings define the outer limits of adjudication; building a new case is a jurisdictional error.
- Expert medical board reports carry weight; tribunals must not substitute their own medical judgment.
- Appeals under Article 136 against NCDRC orders are generally not the proper remedy, per Universal Sompo.
- Failure to prove the case as pleaded may lead to outright dismissal, regardless of adverse outcomes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Pleadings Principle: The Court analysed the original complaint, which alleged only post-delivery negligence, and held that the NCDRC erred by attributing antenatal negligence, a ground never pleaded.
- Medical Board Findings: Five successive expert committees unanimously found no gross negligence by the treating doctors; the Supreme Court emphasised that courts and tribunals lack medical expertise to override such findings.
- Res Ipsa Loquitur & Professional Judgment: Reiterating Jacob Mathew and Martin D’Souza, the Court confirmed that adverse medical outcomes do not automatically establish negligence absent strong evidence.
- Jurisdictional Limits of Consumer Fora: Relying on pleadings-based jurisprudence (e.g., Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar), the Court held that tribunals must confine themselves to the material facts pleaded by parties.
- Proper Remedy for NCDRC Orders: Although Article 136 is not ordinarily the correct route against NCDRC orders, the Court entertained the SLP due to delay and finality considerations, referencing Universal Sompo.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- All medical boards appointed by various authorities found no gross negligence in labour, delivery or post-delivery care.
- The nursing home was adequately equipped; blood grouping and cross-matching were done in time; transfusion and transfer to PGI were conducted without undue delay.
- The NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction by construing antenatal lapses beyond the scope of the complaint.
Respondent
- Alleged that the nursing home lacked emergency facilities, blood was unavailable for timely transfusion, and transfer to PGI was delayed.
- Claimed that informing the patient of the newborn’s death induced shock and profuse bleeding.
- Sought compensation for deficiency in post-delivery treatment and related expenses.
Factual Background
Manmeet Singh lost his wife, Charanpreet, and newborn son following a delivery at Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh. He filed a consumer complaint alleging the nursing home was ill-equipped, delayed blood transfusion, and negligently transferred his wife to PGI, where she was declared brought-dead. The SCDRC awarded ₹20.26 lakh; the NCDRC reversed part of that, finding antenatal care lapses by Dr. Kochhar. Five medical boards had exonerated the appellants. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings and reports, held the NCDRC’s findings beyond pleadings, and set aside both orders, dismissing the complaint.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 136 vs. Article 226 of the Constitution: The Court acknowledged that consumers should ordinarily pursue High Court remedy under Article 226 against NCDRC orders, but granted leave under Article 136 on grounds of delay and equity (per Universal Sompo).
- Consumer Protection Act Jurisdiction: The judgment underscores that the jurisdiction of SCDRC/NCDRC is circumscribed by the complaint as filed; tribunals cannot entertain unpleaded claims.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – The NCDRC’s order building a new case beyond pleadings is overruled.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Jacob Mathew, Martin D’Souza, Devarakonda.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Highlights conflict between SCDRC, NCDRC, and expert medical boards.