UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus N. R. SRIVASTA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 23-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
N. R. SRIVASTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2823 of 2020)
JULY 23, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
s. 2(1)(o) – Medical negligence – Complaint – Against a
private hospital and a Government hospital – District Consumer
Forum dismissed the complaint against the private hospital while
as against the Government hospital held that it was not maintainable
as the treatment was offered free of cost – State Consumer Commission
held the private hospital guilty of negligence and directed it to pay
compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs – As regards Government Hospital,
State Commission held that complaint was not maintainable against
it, but it was guilty of negligence – National Consumer Commission
in the Revision Petition filed by the private hospital held that it was
not guilty of negligence – As regards Government hospital, National
Commission held that finding of State Commission that the hospital
was not amenable to jurisdiction of consumer fora was contrary to
decision in Indian Medical Association case and holding that the
hospital was guilty of medical negligence directed it to pay
compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: As
regards the question of jurisdiction of consumer fora against the
Government hospital, in absence of factual foundation in the
pleadings and evidence, the question is left open – National
Commission by reversing the finding on maintainability of the
complaint against the Government hospital in a Revision Petition
filed by the private hospital, exercised the powers conferred on an
appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC – The question
whether the National Commission could exercise such powers in
exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction is also left open – However,
the judgment of National Commission is affirmed on the ground
that quantum of the compensation is small enough to attract
interference of Supreme Court – The judgment of National
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
Commission or this judgment not to be regarded as precedent –
Appeal dismissed.
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6
SCC 651 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 110 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 110
referred to
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2823
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1299
of 2014.
R S Suri, ASG, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Rajesh Ranjan, Vansdeep Dalmia, Sandeep Jha, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
Ms. Shobhana T., Ms. Mahua Kalra, Dinesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar,
Shantanu Sagar, Pramod Dayal, Shekhar Prit Jha, Asis, Ashish Dholakia,
Amit, Ikshit Singhal, Mohit Kaushik, M.K. Singh, G. Balaji, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal arises from an order of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 7 October 2016. The Union of
India, through the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
and Safdarjung Hospital have challenged the order of the NCDRC. The
first respondent was the original complainant in a consumer complaint2
instituted before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II3, New Delhi.
The complaint alleged medical negligence against Sarvodaya Hospital
and Safdarjung Hospital. The NCDRC allowed the revision of Sarvodaya
Hospital. While exonerating it of the finding of medical negligence, it
held Safdarjung Hospital liable to pay the compensation of Rs 2 lakhs
imposed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission4.
1 NCDRC
2 Case No. 55/2005
3 District Forum
4 SCDRC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
3. The spouse of the complainant who was pregnant, was admitted
to Sarvodaya Hospital in a medical emergency at about 5 am on 9 March
2004. She delivered a baby at about 8 am, a few hours after admission.
The baby was delivered prematurely and, according to the complainant,
required medical care in a Nursery ICU. The complainant and his spouse
were referred to Safdarjung Hospital for admission of the child for
emergency medical care. The grievance against Sarvodaya hospital was
that prior to the delivery, it had been represented that the Hospital was
fully equipped with a Nursery ICU and that when the complainant came
to realise that this was not the case, he felt cheated. The complainant

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