Deep Nursing Home and Another vs Manmeet Singh Mattewal and Others

Held: There are five Medical Boards/Committees’ reports – Significantly, all the above reports came about upon the instigation and at the behest of respondent no.1 himself – However, 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 C none of the reports held appellant no.2-doctor negligent – Further, given the settled legal position that every failure in the treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence, this Court finds that the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance in favour of appellant no.2-doctor, as none of them found any medical negligence on her part – As already noted hereinbefore, these bodies were constituted at the behest of respondent no.1 himself and he cannot, therefore, fight shy of the conclusions and findings rendered by them – Simply because a patient did not favourably respond to the treatment given by a physician or if a surgery failed, the doctor cannot be held liable per se by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur – The specific claim of respondent no.1 in complaint case was that there was medical negligence on the part of appellant no.2-doctor and the nursing home in the post-delivery treatment only – The NCDRC rendered a clear finding that there was no medical negligence in the handling of C’s labour, including her delivery; the management of the baby’s problem; and the post-delivery management at the nursing home – The entire focus of the NCDRC, however, was only upon the antenatal care and management of the patient and its pinpointed findings were also in relation to the said period and treatment only – Once his case, as pleaded and projected, was not made out, the NCDRC clearly erred in building up a new case on his behalf and in pinning negligence and liability upon appellant no.2-doctor in the context of antenatal care and management of the patient, which was never the subject matter of the complaint case – In doing so, the NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction – The impugned order passed by the NCDRC, confirming the SCDRC’s judgment on the new grounds made out by it, therefore, cannot be sustained – Respondent no.1 directed to return and refund the sum received by him. [Paras 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31]