P.C. Jain vs. Dr. R.P. Singh
Background
P.C. Jain, an 84-year-old patient, filed a complaint against Dr. R.P. Singh alleging medical negligence during an eye surgery in 2002–2003, which resulted in the loss of vision in his left eye. Jain sought compensation through the consumer dispute redressal system, initiating a prolonged legal battle that spanned over two decades.
Procedural History
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) initially ruled in favor of Jain, awarding him ₹2 lakhs with 12% interest.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) reversed this decision, ordering the refund of compensation to Dr. Singh.
Jain appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which reinstated the compensation but reduced the interest rate to 6%.
Dr. Singh then filed a review petition before the NCDRC, falsely claiming that he had already paid the compensation, resulting in an ex-parte order in his favor.
Jain challenged this order, asserting he had not received any compensation, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the sequence of orders from the consumer forums and the NCDRC. It noted that the Medical Council of India (MCI) had already found Dr. Singh guilty of medical negligence and professional misconduct, suspending his registration for six months—a finding Dr. Singh never challenged, making it final.
The Court found that Dr. Singh had misrepresented facts to the NCDRC by claiming to have paid compensation when he had not. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of honesty in judicial proceedings and the need to compensate victims of medical negligence fairly.
Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court restored the original compensation of ₹2 lakhs to Jain, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint until actual payment.
Dr. Singh was directed to pay the full amount within two months; failing this, the interest rate would increase to 15% per annum.
Additionally, Dr. Singh was ordered to pay ₹50,000 as costs for making a false representation to the NCDRC, to be paid to Jain.
The Court’s decision concluded the litigation, upholding Jain’s rights as a consumer and reinforcing the accountability of medical professionals.
Significance
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting victims of medical negligence, deterring dishonest conduct in legal proceedings, and ensuring that compensation orders are enforced. It also highlights the role of consumer forums and the Supreme Court in upholding patient rights and professional accountability in the medical field.
RELATED Blog
0 comments