The Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to 84-year-old man who suffered loss of vision in left eye due to the medical negligence committed by the doctor twenty years ago.

The Court was deciding a batch of appeals arising out of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed, “In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we modify the orders passed by the NCDRC and direct that the appellant P.C. Jain shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs only with interest @ 12% per annum from the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment is made.”

Advocate Shirin Khajuria represented the appellant while Advocate Sandeep Kapoor represented the respondent.

Facts of the Case -

The appellant/complainant claimed to have lost vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed by the respondent doctor in a surgical procedure. He instituted a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) which allowed his complaint and granted him a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs with an interest @ 12% p.a., holding the doctor guilty of medical negligence. The doctor challenged the order of the DCDRC before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC).

SCDRC allowed the doctor's appeal, observing that since the complainant was operated at New Delhi, the DCDRC Faridabad had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and directed that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs be refunded to the doctor. Hence, the complainant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the same allowed his revision. The matter was remanded back to SCDRC for fresh decision. However, SCDRC again allowed the appeal of doctor and dismissed the complaint.

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain who is 84 years of age as on date claims to have suffered loss of vision in the left eye owing to the gross medical negligence committed by respondent-Dr. R.P. Singh in a surgical procedure which was undertaken way back in the year 2002-2003. He has been contesting this long drawn out litigation for a rightful claim of compensation for more than 20 years.”

The Court further noted that the NCDRC, while accepting the revision of the appellant/complainant, reduced the interest awarded by the DCDRC from 12% to 6%, with a bald unreasoned observation that the rate of interest so applied was on the higher side and, therefore, the same was reduced to 6%.

“The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh misrepresented to the NCDRC that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs only, which had been paid to the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain in the year 2011. As a matter of fact, it is the specific plea of the appellant P.C. Jain that he has not received a single penny towards compensation for the loss of vision suffered by him owing to the medical negligence committed by the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh. The review petition filed by Dr. R.P. Singh was allowed ex-parte by the NCDRC in a totally cavalier fashion without putting the complainant to notice”, it also observed.

The Court, therefore, directed the doctor to pay the compensation to the complainant within two months.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals, granted compensation, and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the doctor for procuring the order under review by making a false representation.

Cause Title- P.C. Jain v. Dr. R.P. Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 67)


Appellant: Advocates Nayan Gupta and Oshi Verma.

Respondent: AOR Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh and Advocate S Rama Rao.

Click here to read/download the Judgment