Consumer Fora Cannot Travel Beyond Pleadings To Frame New Case In Medical Negligence Complaints: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing an appeal filed against findings of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and the NCDRC, arising from the death of a woman and her newborn shortly after delivery.

The complainant had alleged negligence in post-delivery care at the nursing home. While the SCDRC found negligence and awarded compensation, the NCDRC shifted the liability onto the attending doctor, construing negligence in antenatal care.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while pronouncing the judgment, observed that “In any event, the NCDRC’s ultimate conclusion was that there was negligence on the part of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar only in the antenatal care and management of Charanpreet Kaur. More importantly, the NCDRC rendered a clear finding that there was no medical negligence in the handling of Charanpreet Kaur’s labour, including her delivery; the management of the baby’s problem; and the post-delivery management at the nursing home. These conclusions, arrived at by the NCDRC, not only reversed the findings of the SCDRC but also turned the very case put forth by the complainants on its head. In fact, the NCDRC decided the matter by building up a new case altogether!”

Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia & Senior Advocate Kawaljit Kochar appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Satinder Gulati with Advocate Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR, represented the respondents.

Background

The complainant, husband of the deceased patient, alleged negligence by the nursing home and the doctor in the treatment provided during and after delivery, which led to the death of the patient and the infant. The SCDRC accepted this contention, held both the doctor and the nursing home liable, and awarded compensation.

In appeal, the NCDRC exonerated the nursing home but found the attending doctor negligent on different grounds of failure to ensure standard tests during antenatal care. This reasoning travelled beyond the original complaint, which had confined itself to alleged negligence in post-delivery treatment.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after examining the matter, held that NCDRC had acted beyond its jurisdiction by building up a case of antenatal negligence when the complaint was strictly limited to post-delivery negligence. The Bench stressed that NCDRC should have restricted its findings to the case pleaded.

The Court referred to Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar (1953) and reiterated that adjudication must be confined to the pleadings of the parties. In Trojan & Co, the Supreme Court had ruled that “the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found”.

The Bench also drew support from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, where the Supreme Court had held 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.”

The Court further considered the reports of multiple Medical Boards constituted during the proceedings, all of which opined that there was no gross negligence in the treatment provided.

Noting that the NCDRC’s reliance on a possible pre-existing condition to hold the doctor liable was impermissible, the Bench remarked: “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 Charanpreet 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.”

Conclusion

Concluding that the findings of negligence recorded by the fora were unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the SCDRC and NCDRC, and dismissed the complaint.

It further directed that the compensation amount received by the complainant during the pendency of litigation be refunded in instalments to the appellants and the insurer.

Cause Title: Deep Nursing Home and Another v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1094)

Appearances

Appellants: Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia & Senior Advocate Kawaljit Kochar

Respondents: Advocate Satinder Gulati with Advocate Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment