Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Supreme Court Imposes Costs on Doctor for False Representation in Medical Negligence Case, Upholds 12% Interest on Compensation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the principles of justice and accountability in cases of medical negligence. The apex court, in its decision dated 29th January 2024, upheld the compensation awarded to the appellant, P.C. Jain, who suffered loss of vision due to alleged medical negligence by respondent Dr. R.P. Singh. The court, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, modified the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order by reinstating the 12% interest rate on the compensation and additionally imposed costs on the respondent for false representation.

The case, which revolved around a surgical procedure conducted by Dr. Singh that resulted in the appellant losing vision in his left eye, saw multiple legal challenges, including issues of jurisdiction and the quantum of compensation. Initially, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad, granted compensation to Jain, which was later challenged on jurisdictional grounds.

The Supreme Court observed, "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 longer res integra," thus affirming the findings of medical negligence.

Addressing the long-drawn litigation and the suffering of the appellant, the court stated, "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."

Further, the court harshly criticized the conduct of Dr. Singh, who had misrepresented facts to the NCDRC. "As the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh procured the order under review dated 22nd 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," read the judgment.

Date of Decision: 29th January 2024

P.C. Jain VS Dr. R.P. Singh

 

Latest Legal News