LexDEEP NURSING HOME AND ANOTHER versus MANMEET SINGH MATTEWAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 26 : 2025 INSC 1094 Deep Nursing Home and Another v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025) 09 September 2025 [Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Validity of the finding that appellant no.2-doctor, the Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist who conducted the delivery of newborn child, which resulted in death of both woman and newborn child, is guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. Headnotes† Medical Negligence – Death of a wife-C and newborn child of respondent no.1 – Allegation of medical negligence – The SCDRC found appellant no.1-Nursing home and appellant no.2-doctor medically negligent on the ground that they did not exercise due care and caution in treating C 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 (respondent nos.1 and 2) – In appeal, the NCDRC came to the conclusion that no liability would attach to Nursing Home and pinned the entire responsibility of paying ₹20,26,000/- upon appellant no.2 – Correctness: Held: There are five Medical Boards/Committees’ reports – Significantly, all the above reports came about upon the instigation and at the behest of respondent no.1 himself – 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 C none of the reports held appellant no.2-doctor 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, this Court finds that the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 27 Deep Nursing Home and Another v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others in favour of appellant no.2-doctor, as none of them found any medical negligence on her part – As already noted hereinbefore, these bodies were constituted at the behest of respondent no.1 himself and he cannot, therefore, fight shy of the conclusions and findings rendered by them – 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 – The specific claim of respondent no.1 in complaint case was that there was medical negligence on the part of appellant no.2-doctor and the nursing home in the post-delivery treatment only – The NCDRC rendered a clear finding that there was no medical negligence in the handling of C’s labour, including her delivery; the management of the baby’s problem; and the post-delivery management at the nursing home – 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 – 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 appellant no.2-doctor 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 – The impugned order passed by the NCDRC, confirming the SCDRC’s judgment on the new grounds made out by it, therefore, cannot be sustained – Respondent no.1 directed to return and refund the sum received by him. [Paras 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31] Case Law Cited Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain and Another [2023] 10 SCR 1155 : (2024) 9 SCC 148; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1; Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq [2009] 3 SCR 273 : (2009) 3 SCC 1; Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani and Others v. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1608; A.V.G.P. Chettiar & Sons and others v. T. Palanisamy Gounder (2002) 5 SCC 337; Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and Another v. Lodha Crown Buildmart (P) Ltd. (2024) 4 SCC 230; Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. LRs. v. Mohd. Mahim Ali and Others [2024] 8 SCR 727 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4083; Trojan and Company v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar 28 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.