Geetu Sapra And Ors. vs B.L. Kapoor Memorial Hospital And Ors.
- SCC(2005) 10 SCC 549
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A claim before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission based on alleged negligence of a hospital and doctors in treating a patient is within the Commission's jurisdiction, and is not barred merely because the patient's initial injury arose from a motor accident; the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal over claims arising from the accident itself does not exclude the Commission's jurisdiction over claims arising from negligent medical treatment provided after admission to the hospital, these being separate causes of action. Where a claimant has filed both a claim before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (alleging death resulted from the accident) and a claim before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (alleging negligent medical treatment), the question whether the claimant may maintain both claims simultaneously is a matter of merits to be decided by the National Commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
On November 1, 1992, one Mr. Rajeev Sapra was travelling in a Maruti car. The car was hit by a tempo as a result of which the said Mr. Sapra became unconscious and was rushed to Safdarjung Hospital. The appellants who are the wife and children filed a claim before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission') for damages on the ground of negligence of the hospital and the doctors. By the impugned judgment, the National Commission dismissed the claim merely on the ground that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, Thiruvaluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, , they had no jurisdiction.
2. In our view, this judgment has no relevance at all. That was a case where the claim before the National Commission was based on the accident itself. In that context this Court held that the claim based on a motor accident can only be before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In this case, the claim is not based on the accident. The claim is based on the alleged negligence of the hospital and doctors after the said Mr. Sapra was taken to the hospital. That is entirely a different cause of action. In respect of such a claim the National Commission would have jurisdiction.
3. It was, however, urged that the appellants have also filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming therein that the death had taken place due to the accident. It was submitted that if death had taken place due to accident there was no question of maintaining a claim based on the negligence of the hospital and doctors. This raises questions which are to be decided by the National Commission. It will be open to the National Commission whilst considering the merits to decide whether the appellants can maintain an action under the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis that death resulted from the accident as well as a claim for damages for alleged negligence of the hospital and doctors.
4. We, thus, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to National Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free