Supreme Relief to Doctors - Complainant was asked to pay back Rs.10 lakhs to Dr, as same were paid due to "new case of negligence " found out by the National Commission - Adv. Rohit Erande ©

   Deep Nursing Home and another V/s. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2016; Decided on  September 9, 2025

 hon. SANJAY KUMAR; J., Hon. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA; J.

Facts in short :

1. One Mrs. Charanpreet Kaur - 32 yrs, (the deceased mother of the new born), a co-operative bank manager on deputation as a lecturer in the Punjab Institute of Cooperative Training,  She was earning a monthly salary of ₹25,682/-. She was in the 8 th month of her pregnancy when she started consulting Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar of Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh (The appellant nos 2 and 1 respectively) . 

2. According to the complaint case, she visited the nursing home several times and also underwent the tests prescribed from time to time. Photocopies of the ultrasound tests done on 08.08.2005, 11.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 were filed in this regard. It was stated that the couple visited the nursing home on 10.11.2005, 29.11.2005 and 09.12.2005 for check-ups and were assured that all was well and that it would be a normal delivery. A copy of the prescription dated 10.11.2005, with entries, was also filed. Charanpreet Kaur was admitted on 21.12.2005 at about 11.00 AM for delivery. However, unfortunately, the newborn child died instantly after birth, which took place at 02.00 AM on the next day. 

3. It was further alleged that  the mother was informed about the death of the newborn child which resulted in her going into shock and caused profuse bleeding. It was alleged that no blood was readily available in the nursing home for transfusion and the delay in shifting her to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh4 , at 05.30 AM resulted in her being declared ‘brought dead’ on arrival. It was further alleged that the staff of Deep Nursing Home did not bring any reference papers or history sheet to facilitate her treatment at the PGI. The van in which she was taken was also ill-equipped and it was claimed that no doctor accompanied her in the said van. It was alleged that Dr. GS Kochhar, the husband of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, did not accompany in the Van but chose to drive in his own car separately and thus there was no treating Doctor in the Van much less the hospital was well equipped. 

3. It was alleged that the nursing home was ‘inadequately and ill equipped’ to handle emergencies during deliveries and there were no facilities available in that regard.  Thus her   husband Manmeet Singh Mattewal and elder son Shiraz Mattewal filed a compliant before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (SCDRC) and  sought compensation of ₹95,21,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, medical expenses of ₹10,000/- and litigation expenses of ₹11,000/-..

4.  By judgment dated 31.01.2007 in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006, the  SCDRC found the Dr. adn the hospital    medically negligent on the ground that they did not exercise due care and caution in treating the deceased  Charanpreet Kaur but held that there was no fault on their part insofar as the death of the newborn child was concerned.

3.  The SCDRC directed them to pay ₹20,26,000/- to the complainants, Manmeet Singh Mattewal and his other Son Shiraz Mattewal. However, as they were covered by the insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No. 3 herein, the company was directed to pay ₹20,00,000/- and the balance was directed to be paid by them. Interest @ 9 % was awarded if the amount was not paid in one month. Costs of ₹10,000/- were also awarded. 

4. Feeling Aggrieved thereby, the Deep Nursing Home,   and Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the Insurance co.  filed separate Appeals  before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (NCDRC)   assailing the SCDRC’s judgment.   However, by order dated 09.05.2012, the NCDRC dismissed both appeals. 

5. It was held by the NCDRC on 05/05/2012 i.e. nearly after two years from the date of keeping it for order - 27/07/2020,   that no liability would attach to Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, and pinned the entire responsibility of paying ₹20,26,000/upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar - the treating gynecologist.  As ₹6,00,000/- had already been deposited pursuant to its order dated 12.04.2007 and was withdrawn by Manmeet Singh Mattewal, the NCDRC directed her to pay the balance sum of ₹14,26,000/- in 6 weeks along with costs of ₹14,000/-.  

6. However, the clean chit given to it by the NCDRC, to Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, joined Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in filing the special leave petition from which the present appeal arises.

Defense of the Doctors ;

1.  There were no placental tissue or membranes in her uterus. The cervix was also examined and no tear was found. However, as there was still bleeding, her relations were asked to secure two units of blood from the near by  blood bank  and  Dr. GS Kochhar telephonically informed the blood bank to keep the same ready without delay. 

2. Transfusion was commenced at about 04.15 AM. Owing to the complications which had arisen, two more doctors, viz., a senior Gynecologists and a General Surgeon were contacted, and they reached the nursing home at 04.00 AM. All the doctors present conducted a thorough examination and opined that the patient was suffering from uterine inertia PPH and it was decided that she should be sent to the PGI. 

3. The staff of the septic labour room at the PGI were informed in advance to be ready to receive and treat her. She was shifted in an ambulance with running blood transfusion and an Ambu bag (oxygen). Two staff nurses from the nursing home accompanied her while Dr. GS Kochhar went there in his own car. He personally took the patient on a stretcher to the septic labour room. On his request, completion of the other formalities prior to admission were kept on hold. During the journey, the patient suffered a bout of bleeding and was in deep shock. After reaching the PGI, she was examined but no pulse and heart beat were palpable.

4. Despite resuscitative measures, she did not survive. The patient developed uterine inertia PPH which is a disorder with poor prognosis and high mortality. Uterine Artery Embolization facility was available only in the PGI in the whole of North India. The blood group of Charanpreet Kaur was checked and the same was written on the prescription dated 10.11.2005 itself, which had been filed with the complaint. It was denied that the nursing home was ill equipped to handle emergencies during deliveries. It was asserted that there was no delay in shifting the patient to the PGI.  

Interesting to note that, at the behest of the Complainant 5 different medical Expert Boards were formed and three of them found no negligence and 

Held by hon'ble Apex court :

1. After going through all the documents and arguments, the Apex court observed that except for one report which, owing to lack of sufficient data, left one question open, i.e., the possible pre-existing conditions that may have led to the death of Charanpreet Kaur, none of the reports held Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar negligent. 

2. It was also held that  given the settled legal position that every failure in the treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence, we find that the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance in favour of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, as none of them found any medical negligence on her part. the Apex court held as all these boards were constituted  at the behest of Manmeet Singh Mattewal himself and he cannot, therefore, fight shy of the conclusions and findings rendered by them.

3. Relying on the earlier judgments of Jabo mathew and Mohd. D'souza, it was pointed out that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to a patient as the reputation of that professional would be at stake and a single failure may cost him or her dear in that lapse. It was also pointed out that sometimes, despite best efforts, the treatment by a doctor may fail but that does not mean that the doctor or surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he or she is. It was also pointed out that Courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists.

4. The Apex Court also put reliance on one of its recent judgment in the case of  Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani and others vs. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences and others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1608) wherein  it was held that unless a complainant is able to establish a specific course of conduct, suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctor on the line of treatment which was administered and, in the absence of such material disclosing medical negligence, the Court cannot form a view at variance, as every death in the institutionalised environment of a hospital does not necessarily  amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.

5. However, hon'ble Apex Court came heavily on NCDRC for building a totally new case. The SCDRC had accepted Manmeet Singh Mattewal’s case and held that negligence was attributable to Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and the nursing home in relation to the post-delivery care and treatment of Charanpreet Kaur. However, while  reversing this finding,  by the   NCDRC held in clear terms that no liability attached to the nursing home and it was Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar who was to be held responsible on the ground of medical negligence in the antenatal care and management. The specific finding of the NCDRC was that Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar had not prescribed the requisite haematological tests for Charanpreet Kaur and this was never the case of the complainant. It was further held that  the NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on   behalf of the complinanant and in pinning negligence and liability upon Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in the context of antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case

6. ultimately it was held that  the NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings. However, its finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the post-delivery treatment of Charanpreet Kaur have attained finality as no separate appeal was preferred by the complainants. The impugned order passed by the NCDRC, confirming the SCDRC’s judgment on the new grounds made out by it, therefore, cannot be sustained and the apex court directed the Complainant to return the money back to the Dr and to the Insurance Company. 

This is indeed an unique case. there cannot be two thoughts for the loss and grief of the Complainants, however as it has been consistently held by the Ho'ble Apex Court that every death in the hospital cannot be attributed to negligence. It's not every time Doctors much less any individual litigant could fight upto hon'ble Apex Court. The Case started in 2006 and finally ended in the year 2025 !!

Adv. Rohit Erande ©