P.C. Jain vs R.P. Singh

2024 INSC 67 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 683-685 of 2023)

P.C. JAIN ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DR. R.P. SINGH ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13511-13512 of 2023)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals

which arise out of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act,

1986 are noted hereinbelow:-

The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain, claims to have lost

vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed by

the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh in a surgical procedure whereupon Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad

he instituted a Consumer Complaint No. 115 of 2005 before the Date: 2024.01.29 18:29:36 IST Reason:

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

1 Faridabad(hereinafter being referred to as “DCDRC”). Vide order

dated 4th April, 2008, the DCDRC, Faridabad allowed the

complaint of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain and granted him

compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a.

from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization,

holding the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh guilty of medical negligence

in treatment of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain.

3. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh, challenged the order dated 4th

April, 2008 of the DCDRC, Faridabad by way of filing First Appeal

No. 1493 of 2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Haryana(hereinafter being referred to as “SCDRC”)

which was allowed vide order dated 23rd May, 2011 observing that

since the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain was operated at New

Delhi, the DCDRC, Faridabad had no territorial jurisdiction to

entertain and decide the complaint and direct that the amount of

Rs. 2 Lakhs be refunded to the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh.

4. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain challenged the order

dated 23rd May, 2011 passed by the SCDRC by filing a revision

before National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission(hereinafter being referred to as the “NCDRC”), which

2 came to be allowed by order dated 29th July, 2016 and the matter

was remanded back to SCDRC for fresh decision on merits.

5. The SCDRC, vide order dated 6th July, 2017 again allowed the

appeal filed by respondent Dr. R.P. Singh and dismissed the

Complaint No. 115 of 2005.

6. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain challenged the order

dated 6th July, 2017 passed by the SCDRC by filing fresh Revision

Petition No. 3446 of 2017 before the NCDRC which accepted the

same vide order dated 18th May, 2022. The judgment of SCDRC

was reversed and it was held that the compensation awarded by

the DCDRC to appellant-complainant P.C. Jain to the tune of Rs.2

Lakhs was just and proper. However, the interest @ 12% was held

to be excessive and accordingly, the same was reduced to 6%. The

order passed by SCDRC was set aside.

7. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh filed a review petition seeking

clarification of the order dated 18th May, 2022. The said review

application was taken on board and allowed ex-parte vide order

dated 22nd July, 2022 accepting the unilateral version of

respondent Dr. R.P. Singh that he had deposited an amount of

Rs.2 Lakhs on 5th September, 2008 before the SCDRC and

thereafter, vide order dated 23rd May, 2011, the deposited amount 3 was released in favour of the appellant-complainant. A

clarificatory order dated 22nd July, 2022 was accordingly issued

observing that the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh was liable to pay

interest from the date of filing of the complaint upto 5th September,

2008 only.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant-

complainant preferred a review application No. 207 of 2022, before

the NCDRC, objecting to the ex-parte order dated 22nd July, 2022.

However, the said review application was rejected by NCDRC vide

order dated 26th September, 2022. The appellant-complainant

P.C. Jain has assailed these three orders dated 18th May, 2022,

22nd July, 2022 and 26th September, 2022 in Civil Appeals @

SLP(Civil) Nos. 683-685 of 2023 whereas the respondent Dr. R.P.

Singh has preferred Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos.13511-13512 of

2023 challenging the orders dated 18th May, 2022 and 22nd July,

2022 passed by NCDRC.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the material available on record.

10. It is relevant to note here that the Ethics Committee of

Medical Council of India(hereinafter being referred to as ‘MCI’)

conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 20th December, 4 2012 holding Dr. R.P. Singh to be in violation of Professional

Misconduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulation, 2002.

11. The competent authority, i.e., the MCI vide order dated 20th

April, 2015 held the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh guilty of medical

negligence in the treatment of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain

and affirmed the recommendation of the Ethics Committee

removing his name from the Indian Medical Register for a period

of six months.

12. On going through the pleadings of civil appeals preferred by

the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh, it becomes clear that the said order

issued by MCI was not challenged by the respondent Dr. R.P.

Singh and thus, has attained finality.

13. 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. Consequently, the order dated 18th May, 2022

whereby the revision preferred by the appellant-complainant P.C.

Jain was accepted, the order of SCDRC was reversed and the order

of the DCDRC was affirmed, does not warrant any interference in

the appeals preferred by Dr. R.P. Singh.

5

14. Now, we propose to consider the prayers made in Civil

Appeals @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 683-685 of 2023 filed by appellant-

complainant P.C. Jain.

15. 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. The NCDRC, while accepting the revision of the appellant-

complainant P.C. Jain, reduced the interest awarded by the

DCDRC from 12% to 6%, with a bald unreasoned observation that

the rate of interest so applied was on the higher side and, therefore,

the same was reduced to 6%.

16. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh misrepresented to the NCDRC

that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs only, which had

been paid to the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain in the year 2011.

As a matter of fact, it is the specific plea of the appellant P.C. Jain

that he has not received a single penny towards compensation for

the loss of vision suffered by him owing to the medical negligence

committed by the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh. The review petition

6 filed by Dr. R.P. Singh was allowed ex-parte by the NCDRC in a

totally cavalier fashion without putting the complainant to notice.

17. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we modify the

orders passed by the NCDRC and direct that the appellant P.C.

Jain shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs only

with interest @ 12% per annum from the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh

with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till actual

payment is made.

18. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh shall pay the compensation as

directed above to the appellant-complainant within two months

from today failing which the interest shall stand enhanced to 15%

per annum.

19. 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 which upon realisation, shall be paid to

the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain.

20. As a consequence of the above discussion, the Civil Appeals

@ SLP(Civil) Nos. 683-685 of 2023 filed by the appellant-

7 complainant P.C. Jain stand allowed and the Civil Appeals @

SLP(Civil) Nos. 13511-13512 of 2023 filed by the respondent Dr.

R.P. Singh stand rejected.

21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.………………………………J. (B.R. GAVAI)

……………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

January 29, 2024.

8