Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 7 October 2016, which held Safdarjung Hospital liable for medical negligence and directed it to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakhs, while exonerating Sarvodaya Hospital. The original complainant, N K Srivasta, had filed a consumer complaint alleging negligence by both hospitals regarding the treatment of his premature baby, who died in April 2004. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding no misrepresentation by Sarvodaya Hospital and that the complaint against Safdarjung Hospital was not maintainable as treatment was provided free of cost. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) found Sarvodaya Hospital negligent but upheld the non-maintainability against Safdarjung Hospital. In revision, the NCDRC exonerated Sarvodaya Hospital but held Safdarjung Hospital liable, reversing the maintainability finding. The core legal issues were whether Safdarjung Hospital is amenable to consumer fora jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, given the claim of free treatment, and whether the NCDRC correctly exercised its revisional powers. The Union of India and Safdarjung Hospital argued that no charges were levied, making the NCDRC's finding unsustainable, while the complainant opposed the appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, citing Indian Medical Association v V P Shantha, which distinguishes hospitals providing free services across the board from those charging most patients. The Court found no proper factual challenge in the pleadings or evidence regarding jurisdiction and noted the compensation amount was relatively small. It affirmed the NCDRC's order but confined it to the specific facts, leaving the jurisdictional issue open for future cases with adequate factual foundation. The Court also noted that the NCDRC's attempt to do 'complete justice' in revisional proceedings might exceed its jurisdiction, as such powers are exclusively vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142, leaving this aspect for decision in an appropriate case.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Medical Negligence - Liability of Hospitals - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o) - The case involved allegations of medical negligence against Safdarjung Hospital regarding treatment of a premature baby. The NCDRC found negligence and directed compensation of Rs 2 lakhs, but the Supreme Court affirmed the order without deciding the jurisdictional issue due to lack of factual foundation. Held that the award was small and the jurisdictional question remains open for future cases with proper pleadings and evidence (Paras 11-12). B) Consumer Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - Free Services - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o) - The issue was whether Safdarjung Hospital, claiming to provide free treatment, falls under the Act's purview. The Supreme Court referenced Indian Medical Association v V P Shantha, which held that hospitals providing free services across the board are excluded, but not those charging most patients. The Court left this issue open as no proper factual challenge was made in the pleadings or evidence (Paras 9-12). C) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - NCDRC Powers - The NCDRC reversed a finding on maintainability in favor of Safdarjung Hospital in a revision filed by Sarvodaya Hospital, attempting to do 'complete justice'. The Supreme Court noted this may exceed NCDRC's jurisdiction, as such powers are exclusively conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, leaving this issue for decision in an appropriate case (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Safdarjung Hospital is amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, given the claim of free treatment, and whether the NCDRC correctly held it liable for medical negligence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the NCDRC's order directing Safdarjung Hospital to pay Rs 2 lakhs compensation, but confined it to the specific facts and left the jurisdictional issue open for future cases. The Court clarified that the impugned judgment shall not be cited as a precedent.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 2(1)(o) interpretation
- medical negligence liability
- maintainability of consumer complaints against hospitals providing free services
- revisional jurisdiction of NCDRC
