C. ), 2022 (3 )ALD250 , 2022 (154 ) ALR 678 , 2022 (3 )ALT80 , 2022 3 AWC2660 SC , 2022 (2 ) CCC 181 (SC ), 2022 (3 )CGLJ163 , II (2022 )CPJ51 (SC ), 2022 (2 ) CPR 237 (SC ), 2022 (4 )ICC712 (SC ), 2022 INSC 447 , 2022 (2 )RCR(Civil)845 , 2022 (3 ) SCJ 400 , 2022 (2 )TAC354 , 2022 (3 )TAC63 , 2022 (2 )UC1121 , ,MANU/SC/0515/2022Ajay Rastogi#Abhay Shreeniwas Oka#242SC3020Judgment/OrderACJ#AIC#ALD#ALR#ALT#AWC#CCC#CGLJ#CPJ#CPR#ICC#INSC#MANU#RCR (Civil)#SCJ#TAC#TAC#UCAjay Rastogi,SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAccident#Assurance#Cause of Death#Compensation#Complainant#Complaint#Consumer#Consumer Dispute#Criminal Negligence#Damage#Death#Diagnosis#Dispute#Expert Witness#Fault#Hospital#Medical College#Medical Negligence#Medical Profession#Medical Treatment#Nursing Home#Patient#Pleading#Recovery#Service#Surgeon#Undertaking2022-4-212758,50096 -->

MANU/SC/0515/2022

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6507 of 2009

Decided On: 20.04.2022

Appellants: Chanda Rani Akhouri and Ors. Vs. Respondent: M.A. Methusethupathi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ajay Rastogi and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka

JUDGMENT

Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. The sad demise of husband of Appellant No. 1 after his long illness on 3rd February, 1996 has resulted in initiation of the legal proceedings at the instance of Appellant No. 1 along with her children on a bona fide belief that the cause of death of her late husband was post operative medical negligence and follow-up care.

2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter "the Commission"), after appreciating the material on record, including the evidence led by the parties, arrived to a conclusion that it was not a case of post operative medical negligence as being alleged by the Appellants and dismissed the complaint by the judgment impugned dated 21st July, 2009 which is the subject matter of appeal filed at the instance of the Appellants Under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the instant appeal, it may be necessary to cull out the facts relevant for the purpose. Complainant No. 1, the widow and complainant Nos. 2 and 3, the minor children of deceased Naveen Kant, jointly filed a complaint, inter alia, alleging that in the first instance in April, 1990, Naveen Kant developed hypertension and was under the treatment of Dr. P.D. Gulati, Nephrologist, but when no positive changes had come forward, Dr. Gulati advised him for renal transplantation and since then, Naveen Kant was under regular dialysis at the hospital in Delhi under the supervision of Dr. Gulati. When some of his well-wishers informed him about a reputed Nephrologist, Dr. M.A. Muthusethupathi, OP No. 1 who is performing kidney transplant surgery at Madras and after going through the entire medical record and seeking opinion of OP No. 1 and after completion of all legal formalities as being contemplated under the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter "the Act 1994") and taking into consideration the fact that dialysis twice a week may not have been possible for longevity and for better life span of the patient Naveen Kant, the family took a decision to undergo for kidney transplantation and on t........