The National Commission Cannot Interfere With The Concurrent Findings Of Lower Forum Unless There's Evidence Of Legal Misconduct: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant's wife, employed at M/s Bagrrys India Ltd Bhatoli Kalan Baddi, underwent regular checkups at ESI Hospital Baddi during her pregnancy. However, she was later referred to Akash Hospital for normal delivery. Despite showing no complications upon admission and being assured of a normal delivery, negligence allegedly occurred during her treatment by an untrained nurse, the hospital staff, and the doctor. In the middle of the night, she was taken to the operating theatre without prior notice and subsequently referred to PGI, Chandigarh, accompanied by an allegedly untrained technician in a non-emergency ambulance. During transit, the technician negligently removed the fetus from the womb, declaring the child dead. Despite pleas to continue to PGI, she was taken back to the hospital where, allegedly, an intoxicated doctor failed to provide adequate care, resulting in uncontrollable bleeding. She was referred again to PGI Chandigarh but died on the way. The complainants sought compensation of Rs. 19.50 Lakhs, along with interest at 12% P.A. from the date of death until realization, and Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs. The district forum ruled in favor of the complainants, and the opposite parties appealed to the state commission. However, the state commission upheld the district forum's decision. The present complaint is an appeal by the opposite parties against the state commission's order.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The opposite parties argued that the current complaint should not be considered valid, and the complainants should not be allowed to file a consumer complaint due to their acts, conduct, and acquiescence. They claimed that during an emergency situation, the doctor from their hospital was present to examine the deceased. Since the hospital lacked an emergency ambulance, the patient was taken to PGI Chandigarh in a non-emergency ambulance, accompanied by a technical assistant who had received first aid training. Furthermore, they asserted that the deceased was brought back to the hospital at the complainants' request. They also argued that a team of doctors had conducted an examination and issued a Medical Board Report, which concluded that the hospital had not acted negligently and had followed standard treatment procedures.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that according to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, revision under section 58(1)(b) confers limited jurisdiction wherein the Commission's revisional jurisdiction is restricted. The Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) to support their stance. Furthermore, they cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., emphasizing the extremely limited nature of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commission. They highlighted that this jurisdiction should only be exercised in specific circumstances, such as when it appears that the lower commission acted beyond its legal jurisdiction, failed to exercise its rightful jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with significant irregularity.

The Commission did not find any merit in the complaint and upheld the State Commission's order.

Case Title: Akash Hospital & Diagnostics Vs. Attam Chand Mandhotra

Case Number: R.P. No. 138/2020