SC remands doctor for misleading representation in a medical negligence case
Title: PC. JAIN V DR. R.P SINGH
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 683-685 of 2023)
Dated on: 29.1.2024
Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R GAVAI & JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Facts of the case
The present case is a complaint of medical negligence filed by P.C Jain against the respondent Dr. RP. Singh, for allegedly causing the loss of vision of Mr. Jain during an eye surgery conducted in 2002-03. The dispute arose when Mr. Jain filed a complaint in the district consumer court, Faridabad alleging that the Doctors negligence caused his visual loss. The district consumer court based on the said reasoning compensated Mr. Jain with Rs. 2 lakhs with 12% annual interest from the date of filing the case. Discontent with the said order the complainant approached state consumer forum which held that the district commission did not have jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint and reversed the verdict and ordered for the complaint to return the said amount. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached national consumer commission where his petition was allowed and order was passed to remand the mater to state consumer forum where his complaint was dismissed. Post that an appeal was filed in NCDRC which accepted Mr. Jains petition and restored the district forums order and modified it with a reduced interest rate of 6% from 12%. The NCDRC also issued a clarifying ruling on Dr. R.P. Singh’s review appeal, limiting the interest payment to the period before he deposited the funds. Both parties filed a challenge to the NCDRC orders in the Supreme Court. A turning point in the plot occurred when Dr. R.P. Singh filed a review petition, saying he had already contributed Rs. 2 lakhs in 2008. In an ex-prate ruling issued on July 22, 2022, the NCDRC recognized Dr. Singh’s version and clarified that he was only had to pay interest. In response Mr. Jain challenging the ex-parte order filed a review petition which was reject.
Issues
whether there was a breach of the duty of care by the doctor?
Court analysis and Judgement
The SC after thorough review of the case modified the NCDRC’s orders, requiring Dr. R.P. Singh to pay Mr. Jain Rs. 2 lakhs with 12% interest from the date of filing the complaint. Dr. Singh was fined Rs. 50,000 by the court for making what the court considered to be a misleading representation.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh