No favourable response to treatment doesn't mean negligence by doctor: SC sets aside NCDRC's order of compensation

The Supreme Court has on September 9, 2025 emphasised that 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.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma also underscored that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to a patient as the reputation of that professional would be at stake and a single failure may cost him or her dear in that lapse.

Relying upon Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab and another (2005) and Martin F D'Souza Vs Mohd Ishfaq (2009), the court said, it was also pointed out that sometimes, despite best efforts, the treatment by a doctor may fail but that does not mean that the doctor or surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he or she is.

It was also said that courts and consumer fora are not experts in medical science and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. While acknowledging that the medical profession had been commercialised to some extent and there were doctors who depart from their Hippocratic Oath for their selfish ends of making money, this Court held that the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples, the bench said.

The court made references to those judgment while allowing an appeal filed by Deep Nursing Home and another. It set aside the order of May 09, 2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, as well as the judgment of Janaury 31, 2007 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

The court found in the matter, the NCDRC built up a new case, going beyond pleadings and trangressing its jurisdiction by making its ultimate conclusion that there was negligence on the part of Dr Kanwarjit Kochhar only in the antenatal care and management of patient Charanpreet Kaur.

Dismissing the consumer complaint, the court directed Manmeet Singh Mattewal, respondent No 1, to return and refund the sum of Rs 10,00,000 received by him, pursuant to the orders passed in this litigation, to Dr Kanwarjit Kochhar, Dr G S Kochhar and New India Assurance Company Ltd, as the nursing home was no longer in existence.

As per facts of the matter, Mattewal lost his wife, Charanpreet Kaur, and his newborn son within the span of a few hours.

On his complaint, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh had on January 31, 2007 found Dr (Mrs) Kanwarjit Kochhar, appellant No.2, the Obstetrician and Gynaecologist who conducted the delivery and the nursing home as guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. It directed them to pay Rs 20,26,000 to the complainant Mattewal and his older son.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by order on May 09, 2012 dismissed the appeals. It pinned the entire responsibility of paying Rs 20,26,000 upon Dr Kochhar.

Examining the appeals, the court noted the NCDRC reserved judgment in the appeals on July 27, 2010 but the order was pronounced by it nearly two years later, on May 09, 2012!

Deceased, Kaur, a co-operative bank manager on deputation as a lecturer in the Punjab Institute of Cooperative Training, was aged about 32 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs 25,682.

She was admitted on December 21, 2005 at about 11.00 AM but the newborn baby died instantly immediately after the birth next day. This resulted in her going into shock and caused profuse bleeding. She was taken to PGI Chandigarh next day, where she was declared brought dead.

It was alleged the nursing home was not equipped to handle emergencies and complications during deliveries; the record of the treatment was fabricated later to escape prosecution; the blood group of Charanpreet Kaur was not checked and this led to delay in blood transfusions; the death of the newborn child was also due to negligence; there was negligence in causing trauma to Kaur.

In its findings, the NCDRC opined that, though all the Medical Boards had opined that there did not appear to be any gross medical negligence in the management of the patient by the treating doctors after the delivery, the same did not mean that there was no medical negligence before the delivery. It found several instances of departure from standard protocols in the antenatal care of the patient on the part of Dr Kochhar.

The court noted five reports by different medical boards came about upon the instigation and at the behest of Mattewal himself, who approached various authorities voicing his grievance against Dr Kochhar and the nursing home in relation to the death of his wife and child.

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 Charanpreet Kaur, none of the reports held Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar negligent, the bench pointed out.

"Given the settled legal position that every failure in the treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence, we find that the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance in favour of Dr Kochhar, as none of them found any medical negligence on her part. As these bodies were constituted at the behest of Mattewal himself and he cannot, therefore, fight shy of the conclusions and findings rendered by them,'' the bench said.

The court noted, the NCDRC decided the matter by building up a new case altogether, despite giving a clear finding of no medical negligence in the handling of Kaur’s labour, including her delivery; the management of the baby’s problem; and the post-delivery management at the nursing home.

It held the NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on behalf of complainant in pinning negligence and liability upon Dr Kochhar 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 as it was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings in the complaint case and build up a new case on its own,'' the bench said.

The court finally held the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings. However, its finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the post-delivery treatment of Kaur have attained finality as no separate appeal was preferred by the complainants. The impugned order passed by the NCDRC, confirming the SCDRC’s judgment on the new grounds made out by it, therefore, cannot be sustained, it said.

Case Title: Deep Nursing Home and another Vs Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others