State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Vijay Sharma on 25 March, 2026
SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026
Versus
Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
AND
SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026
Versus
Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 10.05.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 17.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 25.03.2026
SC/5/A/181/2019
Dr. Daizy Sondhi
C/o Daizy Nursing Home
Arya Nagar Chowk, Jwalapur, Haridwar
Uttarakhand - 249407
(Through: Sh. Bhavesh Chandnani, Advocate along with
Sh. Parveen Kumar, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Vijay Sharma W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma
R/o Q-180, Shivalik Nagar
BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate)
2. United India Insurance Company Limited
60, Janpath, Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
(Through: Sh. J.K. Jain, Advocate
via Video Conferencing)
...... Respondents
AND
Date of Admission: 24.05.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 17.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 25.03.2026
SC/5/A/182/2019
United India Insurance Company Limited
Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited
Ratan Palace, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun
through its Regional Manager Sh. Naresh Talwar
(Through: Sh. J.K. Jain, Advocate
via Video Conferencing)
...... Appellant
1
SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026
Versus
Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
AND
SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026
Versus
Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
Versus
1. Smt. Vijay Sharma W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma
R/o Q-180, Shivalik Nagar
BHEL, Ranipur, P.S. Kotwali, Ranipur
Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate)
2. Dr. Daizy Sondhi W/o Dr. S.K. Sondhi
R/o Sondhi Nursing Home
Near Arya Nagar Chowk, Jwalapur,
P.S. Kotwali, Jwalapur
Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Bhavesh Chandnani, Advocate along with
Sh. Parveen Kumar, Advocate)
...... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
Both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2015, styled as Smt. Vijay Sharma Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, i.e., Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi and Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited (appellants in the captioned appeals before us) were directed to pay sum of Rs. 6,08,334/- (the amount spent in the treatment of the complainant) to respondent No. 1 - complainant, i.e., Smt. Vijay Sharma, besides to pay 2 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of medical negligence and Rs. 10,000/- towards counsel fee, in all, Rs. 7,18,334/- within a period of one month, failing which the complainant was also held entitled to interest @6% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till actual payment. Since both the above-mentioned appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order, hence both are decided together by this common judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are as such that upon conceiving / getting pregnant, the complainant - Smt. Vijay Sharma was under the treatment of opposite party No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi, Sondhi Nursing Home, Jwalapur, Haridwar (treating doctor). The complainant got herself examined by the treating doctor from time to time. The complainant contacted the treating doctor for antenatal check-up and paid the requisite fee for the same. The treating doctor examined the complainant on 05.07.2013. The complainant consumed all the medicines as prescribed by the treating doctor. The complainant consulted / took treatment from the treating doctor on the dates mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the consumer complaint and also underwent blood tests etc., as prescribed / suggested by the treating doctor. During the course of her treatment, the complainant felt debility / weakness and also suffered fever frequently, whereupon the treating doctor prescribed her to undergo pathological examination. On 05.05.2014, the complainant underwent pathological examination at Dr. Mishra's Pathology Lab, Haridwar and in the pathological examination report, the Serum Bilirubin of the complainant was shown as 1.3 mg/dl and Serum Alk. Phosphatase was shown as 1460 IU/L. In the pathology report dated 29.05.2014 of the complainant issued by Ravi Diagnostic Laboratories, Haridwar, her Serum Bilirubin was 3 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another shown as 3.6 mg/dl and Conjugated (D Bilirubin) was shown as 2.4 mg/dl. Inspite of the complainant suffering from jaundice, the treating doctor got the complainant admitted in her nursing home for delivery on 02.06.2014 and conducted LSCS (Lower Segment Cesarean Section), inspite of the delivery pain being not felt by the complainant and her Serum Bilirubin was high, which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the treating doctor.
3. It was also averred that the complainant regularly apprised the treating doctor about her weakness after delivery; abdomen & chest pain; excessive bleeding and continuous fever, but the treating doctor did not pay any sort of attention in the complainant's treatment. The treating doctor discharged the complainant from her nursing home on 05.06.2014 at 9:45 a.m. On 09.06.2014, the complainant became unwell and consulted the treating doctor, whereupon the treating doctor got the check-up of the complainant done. At that time, the complainant again apprised the treating doctor about the problems / ailments suffered by her during pregnancy as well as delivery, but the treating doctor did not pay any heed, as a result whereof, the complainant got surrounded by serious ailments and the treating doctor did not extend correct treatment to the complainant. On 10.06.2014, the complainant got her pathological examination done at Dr. Mishra's Pathology Lab, Haridwar and the pathological examination report reflected Haemoglobin of the complainant as 8.0 gm%. The condition of the complainant got anemic, due to which her weakness was rising and she was having continuous bleeding. The treating doctor refused to see the complainant. The husband of the complainant refused for complainant's LSCS on 02.06.2014, as the complainant's was very weak. At that time, the complainant was assured by the treating doctor 4 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another that full responsibility is upon her, but the treating doctor neither discharged her duties / responsibilities, nor gave proper treatment to the complainant, on account of which, the complainant suffered bleeding and her Haemoglobin as well as Platelets dropped significantly, with the result that the condition of the complainant became extremely serious. The husband of the complainant took her to J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh for treatment, where she was got admitted on 17.06.2014 and preliminary treatment was administered to her. Looking at the serious condition of the complainant, the complainant's husband took her to Varun Hospital, Aligarh on 17.06.2014, where her treatment remained continued and after getting some relief by the complainant, she was discharged from Varun Hospital, Aligarh. However, on 23.06.2014, the complainant again suffered bleeding, then again, she was again taken / referred to J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh, where she remained admitted from 24.06.2014 to 07.07.2014. The doctors at J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh told the complainant that on account of negligence by the treating doctor at the time of complainant's delivery, she had suffered infection, due to which her condition became serious.
4. It was further asserted that when the complainant got relief to some extent, she was brought to her house at Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar, where again her condition became critical on 13.07.2014, whereupon she was got admitted in nearby hospital, i.e., Leelawati Healthcare Multi Speciality & Laparoscopy Hospital, Haridwar, where her condition kept getting worse and the complainant was advised to consult Himalayan Hospital, Swami Ram Nagar, Dehradun, where the complainant was got admitted in serious condition on 14.07.2014 and her Haemoglobin level was 1.6 g/dL. Taking into consideration the 5 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another critical condition of the complainant, she was referred to New Delhi for treatment / management. On 14.07.2014, the complainant visited Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, H-33, Sector-27, Noida, where her treatment continued till 29.07.2014, where the doctors told that on account of fever and jaundice coupled with uterus infection and septic, there had been excessive bleeding after her delivery. It was further told that there had been negligence on the part of the treating doctor in pre- delivery treatment of the complainant as well as at the time of her delivery, due to which the complainant suffered septic and other ailments, leading to excessive bleeding. During the course of her treatment at Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida, the complainant remained admitted in ICU (Intensive Care Unit), where her uterus was removed, so that there should be no danger to her life in future. The doctors at Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida have disclosed in case summary and discharge summary that on account of negligence and wrong treatment / carelessness by the treating doctor during the pre-delivery treatment of the complainant as well as at the time of her delivery, the complainant had to go through serious ailments. Thus, alleging medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor, consumer complaint was set in motion by the complainant before the District Commission.
5. The opposite party No. 1 - Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi (appellant in appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/181/2019) filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that the complainant was under
treatment from 05.07.2013 to 09.06.2014 for antenatal (pregnancy) check-up and being a qualified gynecologist & obstetrician, she properly examined and investigated the complainant / patient. In the last trimester of pregnancy, the complainant suffered from yellow 6 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another coloration of skin, which on investigation, was found to be cholestatic jaundice and the complainant also had low lying placenta. There were two reasons for doing elective caesarian section, i.e., low lying placenta and bleeding per vagina. There was high risk of bleeding due to detachment of placenta with its complications in both mother and baby. In low lying placenta, there is great risk of bleeding before, during and after delivery. The risk of bleeding increases as pregnancy approaches term and there is great risk of life of both mother and baby (APH and PPH) during normal delivery. So, elective caesarian was done with the consent of complainant's husband, which was in the best interest of the patient. Jaundice might have affected both mother and baby, if pregnancy was continued to prolong. Secondly, being low lying placenta, if elective caesarian section would not have been performed and procedure of normal delivery would have been adopted, then the risk of antenatal bleeding due to pre-detachment of placenta was very high, which could have led to death of baby and there was also high risk of life of mother. The LSCS was done with the consent of patient's husband by the treating doctor by applying knowledge of medical science and professional skill.
6. It was also stressed that the patient and baby both were clinically stable after delivery. The patient was allowed to take orally on 3rd post-operative day, as all the parameters of the patient were normal and the patient was satisfactorily responding to the treatment. At the time of discharge, Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma, the patient's husband had acknowledged in writing that "mother and baby both are well and we are satisfied with the treatment". The above facts show that the patient had no evidence of any infection / bad effect of treatment given by the treating doctor. The complainant has failed to establish negligence in 7 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another the duty of the treating doctor. The patient had habit of ignoring advice of doctors, which resulted in sever deterioration of her health. Three days' after removal of stitches, the patient came with c/o mild fever. The patient was advised investigations, but she did not turn up. For the treatment of bleeding per vaginal at J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh, the doctors did D&C (Dilation & Curettage) to diagnose and treat the cause of bleeding, but the bleeding did not subside even after D&C, then the doctor at J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh advised for hysterectomy (removal of uterus), but the patient did not follow the advice, resulting in blood loss (anemia). Later on, the patient might have developed infection due to multiple examinations at various medical centers. The factum of the patient ignoring of medical advice has been mentioned in the case summary of Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida. Ultimately, when the patient's condition became serious, she got ready for hysterectomy on 22.07.2014 at Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida. After the caesarian section / operation, mother and baby were stable. The patient's stitches were normal. The report of histopathology and blood reports show that there was no sign of infection.
7. It was further urged that there was no evidence of acute or chronic Endometritis in histopathology report, which confirms that upto 25.06.2014, the patient had no infection / septic in uterus. D&C of the patient done at J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh was the standard line of treatment in such cases, especially when the cause of bleeding is not found even after complete investigation. After D&C at J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh, it became clear that the cause of bleeding was not related to caesarian operation. It was due to unknown reason, therefore, all experts of various reputed hospitals had 8 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another arrived at a conclusion that bleeding can be controlled only by hysterectomy, which was at last done upon the patient at Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida. The main reason of deterioration of patient's health was due to failure on her part in strictly / properly adhering to the advices given by various doctors. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant / patient against the treating doctor. The treating doctor has not committed any sort of negligence, while providing treatment to the patient. The patient's case was considered through all angles and delivery was planned, as the condition usually resolves afterwards with complete recovery. The liability of a medical professional / doctor arises not when the patients has suffered any injury, but when the injury has resulted due to the conduct of the doctor, which has fallen below that of reasonable care. The facts and circumstances of the case show that the treating doctor had attended the patient with due care, skill and diligence. Simply because the patient's condition was not restored satisfactorily, can not be a ground to hold the treating doctor guilty of negligence and deficient in her duty. A mere allegation will not make out a case of medical negligence, unless the same is proved by reliable and expert evidence. The treating doctor was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, DO 1, 60, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001 under Professional Indemnity Dr. (Other) Policy No. 040100/46/12/35/00005239 for the period from 27.10.2012 to 26.10.2013. Since there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor, hence the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. The opposite party No. 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited (appellant in appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/182/2019) filed written statement before the District Commission, thereby submitting 9 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another that during the currency of the insurance policy valid for the period from 27.10.2012 to 26.10.2013, the complainant visited the treating doctor only on five occasions, i.e., 05.07.2013; 05.08.2013; 13.09.2013; 08.10.2013 and 19.10.2013. For any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the treating doctor beyond the coverage period of policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured / treating doctor. The patient was admitted for delivery on 02.06.2014 and after delivery, she was discharged on 05.06.2014. The consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the insurer.
9. The District Commission, after hearing the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.04.2019 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the treating doctor has filed appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/181/2019 and the insurance company has preferred appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/182/2019, thereby assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the original record of the District Commission, which was summoned by this Commission per order dated 20.09.2022 passed in appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/181/2019. We have also perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the treating doctor as well as those filed on behalf of the complainant in appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/181/2019 and also the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant in appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/182/2019.
10SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
11. The case set up by respondent No. 1 / complainant is that the treating doctor committed negligence and carelessness in her treatment during the period of pregnancy; at the time of her delivery and even during the post delivery period and inspite of the complainant bringing to the notice of the treating doctor the continuous problems faced by her, the treating doctor did not pay required attention / heed and failed to provide proper and adequate treatment to the complainant, leading to her condition getting worse and on account of prolonged bleeding / blood loss, her Haemoglobin level even dropped to 1.6 g/dL, which is critically low and represents a life-threatening medical emergency, requiring immediate hospitalization and blood transfusion. Thus, the charge of medical negligence has been levelled by the complainant against the treating doctor.
12. Per contra, the stand of the treating doctor has been that the complainant herself was responsible for her such medical condition, as she did not adhere to the advice given by doctors, which resulted in sever deterioration of her health. This apart, the treating doctor treated the complainant / patient with due diligence and to the best of her professional skill and the established line of treatment was adopted by her, taking into consideration the condition of the patient, so there is no risk of life of both mother and baby.
13. At the outset, we may state here that the complainant has nowhere put challenge to the knowledge, degree and skill of the treating doctor, so as to undertake her treatment for antenatal (pregnancy). The treatment of the complainant by the treating doctor at her nursing home as well as the treatment of the complainant at various other hospitals 11 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another mentioned above, is not disputed. The period / tenure of the complainant's treatment at various hospitals, is also not in dispute.
14. If the complainant was not happy / sure with the treatment provided / administered to her by the treating doctor during the complainant's pregnancy period, she ought to have changed the doctor and refrained from consulting the treating doctor after 05.05.2014, when the pathological examination report of the complainant issued by Dr. Mishra's Pathology Lab (Paper No. 6/14 of the original record) depicted that the Serum Bilirubin of the complainant as 1.3 mg/dl and Serum Alk. Phosphatase as 1460 IU/L, but there is no dispute that the complainant remained under the treatment of the treating doctor w.e.f. 05.07.2013 till 09.06.2014 for her antenatal (pregnancy) check-up. It is worth mentioning here that the consumer complaint is completely silent about the outcome of LSCS (Lower Segment Cesarean Section) performed upon the complainant by the treating doctor on 02.06.2014 and there can be no gain saying that the complainant has concealed the said important fact of the case. The copy of the discharge card of the complainant issued by Sondhi Nursing Home under the signatures of Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi (Paper No. 6/16 of the original record) clearly mentions against treatment / operation, "LSCS done on 2/6/14 and female baby delivered at 4:44 p.m. at 3.1 kg". There is also copy of birth information report (Paper No. 6/17 of the original record), which shows that female baby weighing 3.1 kg delivered by the complainant. By suppressing such a material fact, the complainant has herself casted shadow on the genuineness of her claim of medical negligence levelled by her against the treating doctor and it can easily be inferred that the complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts.
12SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
15. Now, we shall divulge upon the issue as to whether the treating doctor has failed in performing her duties as that of medical professional while treating the complainant / patient. As is stated above, the complainant has nowhere stated that the treating doctor was not qualified to treat her or that she did not possess requisite degree or skill to act as a medical professional. The grievance of the complainant is that due to improper and wrong treatment administered to her by the treating doctor, her health deteriorated to such an extent that there arose danger to her person / life. The treating doctor has specifically taken the stand in the written statement that the complainant did not adhere to the advice given by doctors, hence the complainant herself is responsible for her state of health. There is copy of case summary dated 19.07.2014 of the complainant issued by Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida (Paper No. 25/26 of the original record), which states that the patient was advised there (previous hospital) for hysterectomy, but the relatives refused.
16. There is referral summary dated 14.07.2014 of the complainant issued by Himalayan Hospital, Swami Ram Nagar, Dehradun (Paper Nos. 24/43 to 24/44 of the original record), which clearly states that the patient came as a referred case from Haridwar Pvt. Hospital with secondary PPH and severe anemia in shock. The said summary also states that after 15 days' of LSCS, patient had continuous bleeding P/v & was admitted at AMU, where D&C was done, patient was transfused 2 units PRBC, managed conservatively (HPE s/o scattered compressed endometrial glands in a dense fibromuscular stroma with thick walled blood vessels? The said document further makes mention of the fact that the patient had history of similar episode of 2' PPH on 12.07.2014. The patient was then taken to private hospital and the patient had 13 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another repeated bouts of bleeding and was referred to Himalayan Hospital for needful. The patient was referred to other medical centre. The LSCS of the patient was done on 02.06.2014 and the complainant remained under the treatment of the treating doctor till 09.06.2014. There is copy of consent dated 02.06.2014 at 3:50 p.m. (Paper No. 25/18 of the original record) executed by Sh. M.K. Sharma, husband of the complainant, endorsing they are ready for LSCS operation. After voluntarily giving consent by the husband of the complainant for LSCS, the decision to go for LSCS was not wrongly taken by the treating doctor.
17. The complainant has alleged that inspite of her suffering from jaundice, the treating doctor went for her LSCS on 02.06.2014, which was again the medical norms. The treating doctor has specifically pleaded that in the last trimester of pregnancy, the complainant suffered from yellow coloration of skin, which on investigation, was found to be cholestatic jaundice and the complainant also had low lying placenta. Along with her affidavit filed in evidence before the District Commission, the treating doctor had submitted copy of medical literature on "Viral diseases in pregnancy" (Paper Nos. 25/14 to 25/15 of the original record, wherein Cholestatis jaundice has been defined as mild jaundice and intense pruritus develop during pregnancy, generally during last trimester. Urine is dark but stool pale. This is due to cholestatic reaction of oestrogens of pregnancy. Plasma bile salt is elevated. It tends to be familial. Similar jaundice may develop while taking OC. Serum shows increase in conjugated bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase. The condition recurs in subsequent pregnancy, but jaundice and pruritus disappear following delivery. There can be intrauterine foetal death and postpartum haemorrhage. Thus, the 14 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another medical literature also supports the defence set up by the treating doctor. There is nothing on record to show that the line of treatment so adopted by the treating doctor, was against the established medical norms. It is well settled that merely because the treatment has failed or the patient did not get required relief, can not be a ground to hold the treating doctor accused / guilty of medical negligence. The complainant remained under the treatment of the treating doctor for the period from 05.07.2013 to 09.06.2014. If the complainant was not satisfied with the line of treatment undertaken by the treating doctor and the treating doctor was not giving her required attention and was not properly looking after her and on account of the treatment given by the treating doctor, the complainant's health was deteriorating, she ought to have consulted some other medical professional, but the fact that the complainant remained under the treatment of the treating doctor even till her LSCS was done on 02.06.2014 and also after delivery, goes on to show that the complainant as well as her husband were duly satisfied with the treatment given by the treating doctor and there can be no gain saying that the complainant had full trust on the treating doctor as well as the line of treatment adopted by her. There is nothing conclusive on record, what to say of any expert medical evidence or medical literature, having been submitted by the complainant, to even remotely prove that there was any sort of medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor, while treating the complainant / patient and that the treating doctor did not act promptly and did not properly perform her duties as a medical professional and further that the treatment provided by the treating doctor to the complainant fell below required standard.
15SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
18. Under the present facts & circumstances coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, no case of medical negligence is made out against the treating doctor and it can safely be inferred that the complainant has not filed any expert medical evidence in support of her allegations. It is also pertinent to mention here that record does not show that against the defence so set up by the treating doctor in her written statement, any replication / rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
19. In the case of Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Joginder Singh and others reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 291, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"While it is necessary that the hospital and doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances, in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. To indicate negligence, there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception."
20. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / complainant pressed into service following case laws:
(i) Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust Vs. Smt. Raisan reported in 2004 (1) UC 582.16
SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
(ii) Dr. Shree Mohan, Paras Nursing Home Vs. Shri Sukhpal Singh reported in 2003 (2) UC 969.
(iii) V. Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
reported in 2015 (3) UAD 269.
21. In the case of Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust (supra), there was removal of breast of a woman without getting confirmation from some other doctor. In the case before hand, there was no question of getting confirmation by the treating doctor from some other doctor regarding line of treatment adopted by her. Moreover, in the reported case decided by this Commission, the complainant was a village and countryside lady, whereas in the instant case, there is no such eventuality. In the case of Dr. Shree Mohan, Paras Nursing Home (supra), it was held by this Commission that the patient could not have been cured without operation and the doctor knew that operation was necessary, but did not conduct the operation. In the present case, there is nothing on record that the treating doctor did not do what she was supposed to do in the capacity of a medical professional. In the case of V. Krishnakumar (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that we agree with the findings of NCDRC that the respondents were negligent in their duty and were deficient in their services in not screening the child between 2 to 4 weeks after birth, when it is mandatory to do so and especially since the child was under their case. The facts of the reported case were totally different from those of the case in hand.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / complainant also cited "Medical science helping the process of Criminal Law", wherein reference has been made to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court 17 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another in State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Santra reported in 2000 (3) Supreme 520 and Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole & another reported in AIR 1969 SC 128, wherein it was held that when a doctor is consulted by a patient, the former, namely, the doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are (a) a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; (b) a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and (c) a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his doctor. There can be no dispute about the above principle, but in the case in hand, the complainant has utterly failed to prove negligence on the part of the treating doctor.
23. Learned counsel for the insurance company cited following decisions of this Commission:
(i) First Appeal No. 80 of 2013; Sh. Surendra Bali Vs. Dr. Sumita Prabhakar and others, decided on 30.10.2018.
(ii) First Appeal No. 78 of 2011; Senior Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Tapasya & another and First Appeal No. 85 of 2011; Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi Vs. Smt. Tapasya & another, decided on 30.08.2024.
24. In the case of Sh. Surendra Bali (supra), after relying upon the law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jacob Mathew (Dr.) Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2005 (6) SCC 1 = III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) as well as the law laid down in Martin F. D'Souza Vs. 18 SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another Mohd. Ishfaq reported in (2009) 3 SCC 1 = I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC), has held that no case of medical negligence is made out. In the case of Senior Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), the treating doctor had immediately called the Surgeon on call, who happened to be out of station that day and without wasting any time, the patient was referred to higher medical centre. It was held that no negligence can be attached to the said act of the treating doctor.
25. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Commission without application of mind. We are also of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is totally unjustified and the District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted with material illegality and infirmity, while passing the impugned judgment and order. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. Therefore, the instant appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint needs to be dismissed.
26. Appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 57 of 2015 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeals. The amount deposited by the appellants with this Commission in their respective appeals, be released in their favour.
19SC/5/A/181/2019 Dr. Daizy Sondhi 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another AND SC/5/A/182/2019 United India Insurance Company Limited 25.03.2026 Versus Smt. Vijay Sharma and another
27. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information. The original record of the District Commission be also remitted back forthwith.
28. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
29. A copy of this judgment be kept on the record of connected appeal bearing No. SC/5/A/182/2019.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 25.03.2026 20