LexCPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) versus COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 601 : 2023 INSC 857 601 CASE DETAILS CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) v. COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7175 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant was transfused with one blood unit in the year 2002 at 171 Military Hospital. In 2014, appellant’s blood samples revealed that he was suff ering from HIV. The Complaint fi led by the appellant before the NCDRC seeking compensation was dismissed. Whether the dismissal of his complaint was justifi ed. Consumer Protection – Medical Negligence – Jurisdiction – Whether the appellant’s case is under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – What are alternative basis for exercising jurisdiction – Can the court consider questions of fact: Held: Keeping in line with the reasoning that furthered the objectives of the CPA 1986, spelt out in Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha, in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi it was held that the defi nition of “consumer” under the Act includes not only the person who hires the “services” for consideration but also the benefi ciary, for whose benefi t such services are hired – Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the Scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefi t of employees who would be treated as benefi ciaries within the meaning of that word used in the defi nition of “consumer” – There are several precedents of the Supreme Court, which justify the exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 32 of the Constitution – The Supreme Court has declared the importance of reaching out to injustice 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. and using its powers, including u/Art. 142 of the Constitution in its various decisions – However, if there are any statutory conditions or limitations, its exercise of Art.142 jurisdiction would have to weigh that in; further, the kind of relief to be given in any one case is entirely fact dependent and involves taking into account all relevant factors, subjective to the record in that case – Further, the court’s ability and jurisdiction to appreciate facts, really is uncontestable – In the instant case, even if, arguendo for some reason, appellate jurisdiction is contested, this court deems that it would be unfair to drive the appellant to a fresh civil proceeding, particularly having regard to his vulnerability, and would instead, combine its power, drawing the source of its jurisdiction u/Arts. 32 and 142 of the Constitution, especially since the respondents are the armed forces and its authorities – The exercise of jurisdiction is legitimate and warranted, since the court has before it, all the factual material, supported by the affi davit of the parties. [Paras 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58] Negligence – Medical Negligence: Held: Appellant was advised to undergo blood transfusion during operation (Parakram) – He was admitted at 171 Military Hospital and a blood unit was transfused – Allegedly, the said blood unit was indented from 166 Military Hospital – It is a matter of record that the concerned doctors who were professionals, i.e., either at 171 MH or 166 MH, felt so pressured by the absolute necessity to follow the drills that the safeguards preceding safe transfusion to the appellant appears to have been a given a go by, or dispensed with – In these circumstances, the normal duty of care which would have ordinarily applied and did apply as well, was that at both ends i.e., 166 MH and 171 MH, there should have been no doubt that blood had been fi ltered and found safe for transfusion – Equally, something in the form of other material on record or in the form of the oral testimony by the medical cadre personnel, MO (physician) of 171 MH or who was present in 2002, to show what kind of equipment such as refrigerating unit or other chemical matter to preserve the blood and blood products, even within the safe – When constituted or read together, all these lapses-which may be seen singly as small or minuscule, add up to one thing: lack of adherence to or breach of the relevant standards of care reasonably expected from a medical establishment – Therefore, whilst pinpointed accountability of one or some individuals is not possible, nevertheless the sys
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.