Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 683-685 of 2023)
P.C. JAIN ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DR. R.P. SINGH ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13511-13512 of 2023)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2024 INSC 67
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals
which arise out of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 are noted hereinbelow:-
The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain, claims to have lost
vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed by
the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh in a surgical procedure whereupon
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.01.29
18:29:36 IST
Reason:
he instituted a Consumer Complaint No. 115 of 2005 before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
1
Faridabad(hereinafter being referred to as “DCDRC”). Vide order
th
dated 4 April, 2008, the DCDRC, Faridabad allowed the
complaint of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain and granted him
compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a.
from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization,
holding the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh guilty of medical negligence
in treatment of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain.
th
3. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh, challenged the order dated 4
April, 2008 of the DCDRC, Faridabad by way of filing First Appeal
No. 1493 of 2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Haryana(hereinafter being referred to as “SCDRC”)
rd
which was allowed vide order dated 23 May, 2011 observing that
since the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain was operated at New
Delhi, the DCDRC, Faridabad had no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the complaint and direct that the amount of
Rs. 2 Lakhs be refunded to the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh.
4. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain challenged the order
rd
dated 23 May, 2011 passed by the SCDRC by filing a revision
before National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission(hereinafter being referred to as the “NCDRC”), which
2
th
came to be allowed by order dated 29 July, 2016 and the matter
was remanded back to SCDRC for fresh decision on merits.
th
5. The SCDRC, vide order dated 6 July, 2017 again allowed the
appeal filed by respondent Dr. R.P. Singh and dismissed the
Complaint No. 115 of 2005.
6. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain challenged the order
th
dated 6 July, 2017 passed by the SCDRC by filing fresh Revision
Petition No. 3446 of 2017 before the NCDRC which accepted the
th
same vide order dated 18 May, 2022. The judgment of SCDRC
was reversed and it was held that the compensation awarded by
the DCDRC to appellant-complainant P.C. Jain to the tune of Rs.2
Lakhs was just and proper. However, the interest @ 12% was held
to be excessive and accordingly, the same was reduced to 6%. The
order passed by SCDRC was set aside.
7. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh filed a review petition seeking
th
clarification of the order dated 18 May, 2022. The said review
application was taken on board and allowed ex-parte vide order
nd
dated 22 July, 2022 accepting the unilateral version of
respondent Dr. R.P. Singh that he had deposited an amount of
th
Rs.2 Lakhs on 5 September, 2008 before the SCDRC and
rd
thereafter, vide order dated 23 May, 2011, the deposited amount
3
was released in favour of the appellant-complainant. A
nd
clarificatory order dated 22 July, 2022 was accordingly issued
observing that the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh was liable to pay
th
interest from the date of filing of the complaint upto 5 September,
2008 only.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant-
complainant preferred a review application No. 207 of 2022, before
nd
the NCDRC, objecting to the ex-parte order dated 22 July, 2022.
However, the said review application was rejected by NCDRC vide
th
order dated 26 September, 2022. The appellant-complainant
th
P.C. Jain has assailed these three orders dated 18 May, 2022,
nd th
22 July, 2022 and 26 September, 2022 in Civil Appeals @
SLP(Civil) Nos. 683-685 of 2023 whereas the respondent Dr. R.P.
Singh has preferred Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos.13511-13512 of
th nd
2023 challenging the orders dated 18 May, 2022 and 22 July,
2022 passed by NCDRC.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the material available on record.
10. It is relevant to note here that the Ethics Committee of
Medical Council of India(hereinafter being referred to as ‘MCI’)
th
conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 20 December,
4
2012 holding Dr. R.P. Singh to be in violation of Professional
Misconduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulation, 2002.
th
11. The competent authority, i.e., the MCI vide order dated 20
April, 2015 held the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh guilty of medical
negligence in the treatment of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain
and affirmed the recommendation of the Ethics Committee
removing his name from the Indian Medical Register for a period
of six months.
12. On going through the pleadings of civil appeals preferred by
the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh, it becomes clear that the said order
issued by MCI was not challenged by the respondent Dr. R.P.
Singh and thus, has attained finality.
13. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the issue regarding
the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh having committed medical
negligence in treating the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain is no
th
longer res integra. Consequently, the order dated 18 May, 2022
whereby the revision preferred by the appellant-complainant P.C.
Jain was accepted, the order of SCDRC was reversed and the order
of the DCDRC was affirmed, does not warrant any interference in
the appeals preferred by Dr. R.P. Singh.
5
14. Now, we propose to consider the prayers made in Civil
Appeals @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 683-685 of 2023 filed by appellant-
complainant P.C. Jain.
15. 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 NCDRC, while accepting the revision of the appellant-
complainant P.C. Jain, 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%.
16. 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
6
filed by Dr. R.P. Singh was allowed ex-parte by the NCDRC in a
totally cavalier fashion without putting the complainant to notice.
17. 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.
18. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh shall pay the compensation as
directed above to the appellant-complainant within two months
from today failing which the interest shall stand enhanced to 15%
per annum.
19. As the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh procured the order under
nd
review dated 22 July, 2022 by making a false representation that
the amount of compensation had been paid to the appellant-
complainant P.C. Jain, we impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the
respondent Dr. R.P. Singh which upon realisation, shall be paid to
the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain.
20. As a consequence of the above discussion, the Civil Appeals
@ SLP(Civil) Nos. 683-685 of 2023 filed by the appellant-
7
complainant P.C. Jain stand allowed and the Civil Appeals @
SLP(Civil) Nos. 13511-13512 of 2023 filed by the respondent Dr.
R.P. Singh stand rejected.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.………………………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
……………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
January 29, 2024.
8