Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 527
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAMINENI HOSPITALS … APPELLANT
Vs.
PEDDI NARAYANA SWAMI & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Appellant, which is the Hospital being held
vicariously liable for medical negligence and foisted
with a liability of Rs. 15 lakhs with further
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the doctor of the
hospital totalling Rs. 20 lakhs by the National
Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “NCDRC”) by
order dated 26.08.2022 has challenged the said
order along with the order dated 08.03.2011 of the
Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Disputes
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.04.22
12:54:44 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
1 of 6
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
“APSCDRC”).
3. The challenge is on the ground that the liability as
has been imposed upon the Appellant and the
proforma Respondent No.2 – Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar
on the ground of negligence without there being any
medical literature or evidence of any expert
substantiating the said findings deserve to be set
aside.
4. It is asserted by the Appellant that the hospital and
the doctors working therein who had treated the
deceased son of Respondent no.1 - the complainant,
had followed the due standard of care expected of a
medical professional. Once a reasonable competent
practitioner had taken caution and due care is
observed, the guilt of medical negligence cannot be
said to be made out against the doctor as well as the
hospital.
5. The medical literature which has been placed on
record by the Appellant supported the procedure and
the steps which have been taken by the doctors of
the Appellant-hospital while providing treatment to
the deceased. It is asserted that apart from the due
care and caution being observed, and the required
sanctions/permissions taken from the attendants of
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
2 of 6
the deceased no medical negligence, what to say of
liability, can be imposed upon the Appellant.
6. There has neither been any negligence nor
incompetence at the end of the doctors or staff of the
appellant-hospital. Proper timing and medical
standards have been duly adhered to in accordance
with norms and standard practices recognized and
followed in similar circumstances for which there can
be no responsibility holding the Appellant hospital
liable and therefore the liability qua the
compensation as has been imposed is unsustainable.
7. Another aspect which has been pointed out is that
the amount as has been assessed by NCDRC that is
Rs. 20 lakhs is on the higher side and that too
without any evidence with supportive documents.
This being the basis Counsel for the appellant has
argued and put forth his submission in this regard.
8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent
no.1-complainant has supported the judgment and
the order passed by the APSCDRC and the NCDRC
as far as the liability of the appellant and Respondent
No.2 is concerned.
9. On the basis of the discussion as has been referred
to including the medical evidence as also the medical
records of the deceased patient, it is asserted by the
Counsel for Respondent no. 1 that the findings are in
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
3 of 6
consonance with the pleadings calling for no
interference by this Court. Similarly, the quantum of
compensation for the negligence as has been
assessed by the NCDRC is also supported by
contending that the deceased was 27 years of age
and was a B.Tech graduate. He was also working in a
soap factory and, therefore, the amount of
compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is
fully justified calling for no interference by this
Court.
10. Having considered the submission made by the
Counsel for the parties and upon going through the
records of the case, it is apparent that there is ample
evidences as well as records to indicate that there
was indeed medical negligence at the end of the
Appellant and Respondent no.2.
11. The findings thus returned by the APSCDRC and
NCDRC in this regard cannot be invalidated and are
affirmed.
12. The only question now which requires to be
addressed is the quantum of compensation as has
been assessed and awarded by the NCDRC.
13. As is apparent from the pleadings, the son of the
complainant was 27 years of age at the time of his
death, which is the prime age when a person starts
his career and has his whole life to look forward to.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
4 of 6
14. Similarly, considering that the individual was a
B.Tech graduate and he was working in a soap
factory, albeit drawing a modest salary. In the
beginning, when youngsters start their career,
generally, humble short steps are taken. It is evident
that he was financially supporting the family and had
the qualification and potentiality for earning higher
income in future. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is
without any basis or the quantum is on extremely
higher side. As a matter of fact, the NCDRC has
fixed the compensation at Rs.5 lakhs to be paid by
Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar, proforma Respondent no.2
who has accepted the said judgment and has even
deposited the said amount.
15. As regards the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is concerned
which is assessed to be paid as compensation by the
Appellant, it would not be out of way to mention here
that while issuing notice in the present case, this
Court had directed the Appellant to deposit an
amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the Registry of this Court
to be invested in short term fixed deposit to be
renewed from time to time. We have been informed
that the said amount has increased with the auto
renewal facility over a period of time. We are thus of
the considered view that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs
as stands deposited in this Court by the Appellant
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
5 of 6
along with the accrued interest thereon would serve
the interest of justice and the said amount of
compensation would suffice as far as the liability of
the appellant hospital is concerned.
16. In view of the above, the decision of the NCDRC is
upheld however, the amount of compensation with
regard to the liability of the appellant – hospital
would stand at Rs.10 lakhs along with accrued
interest. The amount so deposited be disbursed to
Respondent no.1 – the complainant on an application
to be submitted to the concerned Registrar of this
Court.
17. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…....………………………………. J.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
.………………………………………J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 22, 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
6 of 6
2025 INSC 527
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAMINENI HOSPITALS … APPELLANT
Vs.
PEDDI NARAYANA SWAMI & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Appellant, which is the Hospital being held
vicariously liable for medical negligence and foisted
with a liability of Rs. 15 lakhs with further
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the doctor of the
hospital totalling Rs. 20 lakhs by the National
Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “NCDRC”) by
order dated 26.08.2022 has challenged the said
order along with the order dated 08.03.2011 of the
Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Disputes
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.04.22
12:54:44 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
1 of 6
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
“APSCDRC”).
3. The challenge is on the ground that the liability as
has been imposed upon the Appellant and the
proforma Respondent No.2 – Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar
on the ground of negligence without there being any
medical literature or evidence of any expert
substantiating the said findings deserve to be set
aside.
4. It is asserted by the Appellant that the hospital and
the doctors working therein who had treated the
deceased son of Respondent no.1 - the complainant,
had followed the due standard of care expected of a
medical professional. Once a reasonable competent
practitioner had taken caution and due care is
observed, the guilt of medical negligence cannot be
said to be made out against the doctor as well as the
hospital.
5. The medical literature which has been placed on
record by the Appellant supported the procedure and
the steps which have been taken by the doctors of
the Appellant-hospital while providing treatment to
the deceased. It is asserted that apart from the due
care and caution being observed, and the required
sanctions/permissions taken from the attendants of
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
2 of 6
the deceased no medical negligence, what to say of
liability, can be imposed upon the Appellant.
6. There has neither been any negligence nor
incompetence at the end of the doctors or staff of the
appellant-hospital. Proper timing and medical
standards have been duly adhered to in accordance
with norms and standard practices recognized and
followed in similar circumstances for which there can
be no responsibility holding the Appellant hospital
liable and therefore the liability qua the
compensation as has been imposed is unsustainable.
7. Another aspect which has been pointed out is that
the amount as has been assessed by NCDRC that is
Rs. 20 lakhs is on the higher side and that too
without any evidence with supportive documents.
This being the basis Counsel for the appellant has
argued and put forth his submission in this regard.
8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent
no.1-complainant has supported the judgment and
the order passed by the APSCDRC and the NCDRC
as far as the liability of the appellant and Respondent
No.2 is concerned.
9. On the basis of the discussion as has been referred
to including the medical evidence as also the medical
records of the deceased patient, it is asserted by the
Counsel for Respondent no. 1 that the findings are in
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
3 of 6
consonance with the pleadings calling for no
interference by this Court. Similarly, the quantum of
compensation for the negligence as has been
assessed by the NCDRC is also supported by
contending that the deceased was 27 years of age
and was a B.Tech graduate. He was also working in a
soap factory and, therefore, the amount of
compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is
fully justified calling for no interference by this
Court.
10. Having considered the submission made by the
Counsel for the parties and upon going through the
records of the case, it is apparent that there is ample
evidences as well as records to indicate that there
was indeed medical negligence at the end of the
Appellant and Respondent no.2.
11. The findings thus returned by the APSCDRC and
NCDRC in this regard cannot be invalidated and are
affirmed.
12. The only question now which requires to be
addressed is the quantum of compensation as has
been assessed and awarded by the NCDRC.
13. As is apparent from the pleadings, the son of the
complainant was 27 years of age at the time of his
death, which is the prime age when a person starts
his career and has his whole life to look forward to.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
4 of 6
14. Similarly, considering that the individual was a
B.Tech graduate and he was working in a soap
factory, albeit drawing a modest salary. In the
beginning, when youngsters start their career,
generally, humble short steps are taken. It is evident
that he was financially supporting the family and had
the qualification and potentiality for earning higher
income in future. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is
without any basis or the quantum is on extremely
higher side. As a matter of fact, the NCDRC has
fixed the compensation at Rs.5 lakhs to be paid by
Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar, proforma Respondent no.2
who has accepted the said judgment and has even
deposited the said amount.
15. As regards the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is concerned
which is assessed to be paid as compensation by the
Appellant, it would not be out of way to mention here
that while issuing notice in the present case, this
Court had directed the Appellant to deposit an
amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the Registry of this Court
to be invested in short term fixed deposit to be
renewed from time to time. We have been informed
that the said amount has increased with the auto
renewal facility over a period of time. We are thus of
the considered view that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs
as stands deposited in this Court by the Appellant
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
5 of 6
along with the accrued interest thereon would serve
the interest of justice and the said amount of
compensation would suffice as far as the liability of
the appellant hospital is concerned.
16. In view of the above, the decision of the NCDRC is
upheld however, the amount of compensation with
regard to the liability of the appellant – hospital
would stand at Rs.10 lakhs along with accrued
interest. The amount so deposited be disbursed to
Respondent no.1 – the complainant on an application
to be submitted to the concerned Registrar of this
Court.
17. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…....………………………………. J.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
.………………………………………J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 22, 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2948 – 2949 OF 2023]
6 of 6