Supreme Court | Consumer Fora Cannot Travel Beyond Pleadings | NCDRC’s Antenatal Negligence Finding Set Aside, ₹10 Lakh Compensation Ordered to Be Refunded
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma directed a complainant to refund ₹10,00,000 received as compensation in a medical negligence case. The Court held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had wrongly introduced a case of “antenatal negligence” against the treating doctor, although the original complaint alleged only “post-delivery negligence.” Stating that the fora cannot travel beyond the pleadings of the parties, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, set aside the concurrent findings of the State and National Commissions, and ordered repayment of the compensation in instalments to the doctor, her husband, and the insurer.
The case concerned the death of Charanpreet Kaur, aged 32, a co-operative bank manager deputed as a lecturer at the Punjab Institute of Cooperative Training. She was in the eighth month of pregnancy when she began consulting Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar at Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh. On 21 December 2005, she was admitted for delivery. In the early hours of 22 December 2005, a male child was delivered but died shortly thereafter. Charanpreet Kaur then suffered excessive bleeding and was transferred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, where she was declared dead on arrival.
Her husband, Manmeet Singh Mattewal, and son, Shiraz Mattewal, filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Chandigarh, alleging negligence by the nursing home and the doctor. They claimed that the facility lacked adequate emergency equipment, that no blood was available for transfusion, that the ambulance was ill-equipped and unaccompanied by a qualified doctor, and that no medical records were provided at the time of transfer. They further alleged that informing Charanpreet Kaur of the death of the newborn caused her to go into shock, resulting in fatal bleeding. Compensation of ₹95,21,000 with interest and additional expenses was sought.
In their written statement, the opposite parties denied negligence. They asserted that Charanpreet Kaur suffered from atonic post-partum haemorrhage (PPH), a recognized complication where the uterus fails to contract after childbirth, leading to uncontrollable bleeding. They stated that treatment was administered in accordance with medical protocol, blood was arranged without delay, and she was shifted under transfusion and oxygen support. They further explained that the baby died of asphyxia despite the presence of a paediatrician. They pointed to multiple Medical Board inquiries, initiated at the behest of the complainant, which consistently ruled out negligence.
By judgment dated 31 January 2007, the SCDRC partly accepted the complaint. It found fault with Dr. Kochhar and Deep Nursing Home for not arranging blood promptly and for failing to accompany the patient during transfer. It ordered payment of ₹20,26,000 with interest and costs, apportioned between the opposite parties and their insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited.
On appeal, the NCDRC dismissed challenges filed by both the appellants and the insurer. It absolved the nursing home but held Dr. Kochhar solely liable, finding her negligent in antenatal care for not insisting upon standard haematological and cardiological investigations. The NCDRC ordered her to pay ₹20,26,000, subject to adjustment of amounts already withdrawn by the complainants.
The Supreme Court reviewed in detail the reports of five Medical Boards convened between 2006 and 2007, all of which concluded that there was “no gross medical negligence in the management of the patient.” These Boards, comprising experts in obstetrics, gynaecology, anaesthesia, surgery, paediatrics, and pathology, consistently held that the treatment given was appropriate for PPH and that blood was transfused within standard timelines.
The Court noted: “Given the settled legal position that every failure in the treatment of a patient does not automatically lead to an assumption of medical negligence, the opinions expressed by the doctors and experts, who constituted these Medical Boards/Committees, clearly tilted the balance in favour of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar.”
Citing Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Bench reiterated: “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 Court criticized the NCDRC for shifting the case from post-delivery negligence to antenatal negligence, observing: “The specific claim of the complainant was medical negligence in post-delivery treatment only. He made no allegations whatsoever to the effect that the antenatal care and management of Charanpreet Kaur were deficient in any manner.”
It held that the NCDRC had exceeded its jurisdiction: “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 Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar in the context of antenatal care.”
Referring to Trojan and Company v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar and Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, the Bench emphasized: “The decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded: “The NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings.”
The Court directed: “Manmeet Singh Mattewal, respondent No. 1, shall return and refund the sum of ₹10,00,000 received by him, pursuant to the orders passed in this litigation, to Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar, Dr. GS Kochhar and New India Assurance Company Ltd. in monthly instalments of ₹1,00,000 each.”
The first three instalments aggregating ₹3,00,000 shall be paid to New India Assurance Company Ltd., while the remaining ₹7,00,000 shall be paid to Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar and Dr. GS Kochhar.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Appellant(s): Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepanshu, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shivam Jasra, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Drouhn Garg, Adv. Mr. Rajivkumar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Satinder Gulati, Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Shubham Arora, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ipshita Gupta, Adv.
Case Title: Deep Nursing Home and another v. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1094
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 2016
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
