Spread the love

CITATION- 2024 INSC 67                         





BENCH- B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA                   


The case revolves around a dispute arising from alleged medical negligence by Dr. R.P. Singh, resulting in vision loss for the appellant, P.C. Jain. Initially, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) awarded compensation to Jain, which was later overturned by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) due to jurisdictional and authoritative issues. After several appeals, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reinstated Jain’s compensation but reduced the interest rate for the same. However, a review petition filed by Dr. Singh resulted in a unilateral decision favouring him. The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, found Dr. Singh guilty of misrepresentation and reinstated Jain’s compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs with 12% interest, imposing an additional 15% interest if not paid within two months. Furthermore, Dr. Singh was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the false representation. As a result, Jain’s appeals were allowed, while Dr. Singh’s appeals were rejected, bringing the legal battle to a close. 


  • P.C. Jain alleges medical negligence by Dr. R.P. Singh, resulting in vision loss in Jain’s left eye.
  • Jain files a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), seeking compensation.
  • DCDRC rules in Jain’s favour, awarding him Rs. 2 Lakhs in compensation with 12% interest. The decision was challenged in SCDRD.
  • SCDRC reverses the decision, ordering the refunded compensation to Dr. Singh.
  • Jain appeals to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which reinstates the compensation but reduces the interest rate to 6%.
  • Dr. Singh files a review petition, claiming he had already paid the compensation, leading to a favourable ex-parte decision.
  • Jain objects to this decision, leading to further legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of India. 


Whether Dr. R.P. Singh committed medical negligence in treating P.C. Jain, leading to vision loss in Jain’s left eye, and whether Jain is entitled to compensation for the alleged negligence?


  • The main argument was alleging medical negligence against Dr. R.P. Singh, claiming that the surgical procedure performed by the doctor resulted in the loss of vision in Jain’s left eye.
  • Another Argument put forward was that the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) was just and proper, considering the severity of the harm caused.
  • Reduction of interest rate on the compensation amount by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) from 12% to 6%, asserting that the higher interest rate was justified given the extent of the injury and the prolonged litigation process.
  • Objection to the ex-parte decision in the review petition filed by Dr. R.P. Singh was made, emphasizing that Jain had not received any compensation despite the claim that an amount had been deposited.
  • One of the arguments, was seeking appropriate relief, including the reinstatement of the original compensation amount with the initially awarded interest rate and addressing the false representation made by Dr. R.P. Singh.


  • The allegations of medical negligence were denied and it was asserted that the surgical procedure conducted was in accordance with accepted medical standards.
  • It was contended that the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) to adjudicate the complaint, particularly if the surgery was performed in New Delhi rather than Faridabad.
  • Another argument put forward was that any compensation awarded by the DCDRC was unwarranted due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim of medical negligence.
  • It was asserted that any reduction in interest rate by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was justified based on legal principles and precedents.
  • Maintaining that any representation made regarding the payment of compensation was accurate and supported by evidence, refuting the allegations of false representation.


The facts of the case, including the alleged medical negligence leading to the complainant’s loss of vision in one eye was considered by the court. The previous decisions of lower courts and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), were taken into consideration. The Supreme Court examined the facts and gave a verdict in favour of Jain, reinstating the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs with 12% interest, effective from the date of the complaint. Additionally, Dr. R.P. Singh was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs under the charge of false representation. The Court’s decision emphasized the importance of compensating victims of medical negligence and ensuring that false representations are penalized.


Various facts were taken into consideration before giving a decision. The court delved into the jurisdictional aspect, the challenges posed by the location of the medical treatment and the appropriate forum for redressal were noted. The court carefully evaluated the evidence presented by both the sides. The court emphasized the principle of compensating victims of medical negligence for their losses. The court’s decision to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000 on Dr. R.P. Singh for making false representations underscores its stance against dishonest practices. This action of the court promotes the integrity of judicial process. The court’s analysis and evaluation reflect a commitment to upholding consumer rights and ensuring accountability in cases of medical negligence. By providing a reasoned judgment, the court aims to deliver justice while maintaining the integrity of the legal system.


The court’s ruling in this matter underscores the significance of equity, accountability, and safeguarding consumer rights concerning medical negligence. With the help of a thorough examination of evidences and legal principles, the court ensured that P.C. Jain, the victim, received fair compensation for the harm caused by medical negligence. Moreover, the decision serves as a reminder of the repercussions of providing false information to the court, as Dr. R.P. Singh faced penalties for such actions. In essence, the judgment upholds consumer rights and fosters integrity within the legal system, thereby contributing to the objective of delivering justice to all parties involved.


This is written by Nyasa Tahim, student of Vivekananda Institute of professional studies (VIPS); Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *