HARNEK SINGH & ORS. versus GURMIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 18-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
HARNEK SINGH & ORS.
v.
GURMIT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4126-4127/2022
MAY 18, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Medical Negligence: Deficiency of service – Claim for
compensation – Complainant’s wife, government school teacher
diagnosed with gall bladder stones – Respondent no. 1-laparoscopic
surgeon at respondent no. 2-hospital performed laparoscopic
cholecystectomy for removal of the gall bladder stones – After
surgery, the patient became very serious – On request, the
respondent no. 1 shifted the patient to respondent no. 4-hospital,
referring her to respondent no. 3-doctor – Respondent no. 3 advised
against the immediate surgical intervention owing to the patient’s
multiple ailments – However, patients condition became critical and
an emergency laparotomy was performed – Patient’s condition
became critical and died due to multi organ failure – Consumer
complaint – State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-SCDRC found
respondent nos. 1 and 2 negligent and directed them to pay
compensation to the complainant, however, the respondent nos. 3
and 4 were exonerated – Ethics committee of the MCI also found
respondent no. 1 medically negligent and issued a strict warning –
However, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-NCDRC
found no negligence on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 2 – On
appeal, held: There were sufficient indicators of large bowel
perforation after the operation, to a diligent professional to detect
and take immediate steps for restitution – NCDRC instead of
examining the material placed on record, rejected the plea of res
ipsa loquitur and held that it was impermissible to assume that any
sensible professional would intentionally commit an act which would
result in an injury to the patient – In these proceedings for damages
due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not
arise – NCDRC erred in reversing the findings of the SCDRC and
not adverting to the evidence on record including the report of MCI
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 209
209
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
– Thus, the case of medical negligence made out against the
respondent no. 1 and 2 – Complainants entitled to compensation of
Rs 25 lakhs with interest @6% per annum, on the ground of
deficiency of service – Order exonerating respondent nos. 3 and 4
upheld.
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and Ors. v. Master Rishabh
Sharma and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 501 : [2019] 16 SCR
1185; Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital and
Medical Research Centre & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480 :
[2010] 2 SCR 685; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab &
Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307;
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Others (1996) 2 SCC 634 : [1996] 2
SCR 881; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur &
Anr. (2019) 2 SCC 282 : [2018] 12 SCR 868 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 16 SCR 1185
referred to
Para 24
[2010] 2 SCR 685
referred to
Para 28
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307
referred to
Para 28
[1996] 2 SCR 881
referred to
Para 28
[2018] 12 SCR 868
referred to
Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4126-
4127 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2020 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Appeal Nos.
108 and 120 of 2008 respectively.
Raj Kiran Talwar, Harikesh Singh, Mohinder Singh, Satyendra
Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Manan Verma, Ms. Suruchi Suri, Simran
Jot Singh, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Anuj Chauhan, Manish Raghav,
Vaibhav Singh, Vivik Sharma, Manoj Tomar, Maibam Nabaghanashyam
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
211
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the decision of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 dismissing
the appeal of the complainant and allowing the appeal of the doctor
and the hospital by holding that no medical negligence was proved.
Having examined the evidence, medical records and the report of
the ethics committee of the Medical Council of India2, we have
concluded that a case of deficiency of service is made out against
the doctor and the hospital, Respondents 1 and 2, herein for medical
negligence. Allowing the appeal of the complainants, we have directed
payment of compensation. We will first refer to the facts leading to
this case.
Facts:
3. Facts as stated in the complaint filed before State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.