Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked for Adjudicating Disputed Questions of Fact in Medical Negligence Claims

The Petitioner’s wife passed away on 22.04.2017 while undergoing treatment at Respondent No. 2 (G.B. Pant Hospital).

The Petitioner alleged medical negligence and filed a complaint with the Delhi Medical Council (DMC).

On 24.04.2018, the DMC Executive Committee found no prima facie case of negligence, which was confirmed by the DMC on 05.06.2018.

The Petitioner then approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which also closed the case on 27.02.2021, finding no negligence.

Subsequent applications for reopening and personal hearing were rejected by the NHRC in 2022.

The Petitioner did not pursue remedies under the Consumer Protection Act or civil law, instead filing this writ petition seeking a finding of medical negligence and compensation.

Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, should exercise its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim of medical negligence involving seriously disputed questions of fact.

Whether a claim arising from private law origins (medical negligence) becomes a public law matter merely because the respondent is a State institution.

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction regarding disputed facts, citing Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which held that while High Courts have discretion, they may decline jurisdiction when cases involve complex factual controversies.

The court also relied on IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd., which established that issues falling within the domain of private law do not automatically become public law matters just because the party is a State instrumentality; there must be a distinct element of public law or administrative arbitrariness to justify a writ under Article 226.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s prayer required a substantive adjudication to arrive at a "favourable finding of medical negligence".

Such an inquiry necessitates delving into "seriously disputed questions of facts," which is impermissible under Article 226.

The court noted that although the respondent is a State hospital, the dispute originates in private law (tort/negligence).

Following the precedent in IDBI Bank Ltd., the court observed that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any public law element or constitutional arbitrariness that would supersede the need for a civil trial.

Since the DMC and NHRC had already returned findings against the Petitioner, the proper course of action involved civil or statutory remedies where evidence could be examined, rather than summary writ proceedings.

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of with the observation that the Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate legal recourse through a civil suit or under the Consumer Protection Act.