State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gian Chand Rangwala Memorial Hospital & ... vs Paramjeet Kaur & Ors. on 4 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1078 of 2022
Date of institution : 12.12.2022
Date of Decision : 04.12.2025
1. Gian Chand Rang Wala Memorial Hospital, Ara Road, Moga
through its Authorized Signatory Dr. Kanu Goyal son of Dr. Sohan
Lal Goyal, resident of Ara Road, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.
2. Dr. Kanu Goyal son of Dr. Sohan Lal Goyal, resident of Ara Road
Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.
3. Dr. Asha Goyal wife of Dr. Sohan Lal Goyal, resident of Ara Road
Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.
4. Minakshi Goyal wife of Dr.Kanu Goyal son of Dr. Sohan Lal Goyal,
resident of Ara Road Moga, Tehsil and District Moga
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 4
Versus
1. Paramjit Kaur aged about 24 years W/o Jagsir Singh through
Special Attorney Jagsir Singh (Husband) aged about 30 years son
of Mohan Singh resident of VPO Khukharan Tehsil and District
Moga, Aadhaar Card No.719940337132.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., DO3, New Delhi 4E/14, Azad
Bhawan, Jhandelwalan Ext. Delhi through its
Authorized/Chairperson (as Insurance Company of OP No.1, 2 & 3
for Policy No.272200/48/2020/3721 & 272200/48/2019/14765 &
272200/48/2019/14655 (impleaded as per order dated
18.06.2021).
3. ICICI Lombard Branch Ludhiana, TFI-5, 3rd Floor, 88, Kunal
Tower, The Mall Road, Ludhiana through its
Authorized/Chairperson (as Insurance Company of OP No. 4 for
FA No.1078 of 2022 2
Policy No.4021/181562512/00/000 (Impleaded as per order dated
18.06.2021).
...Respondents No.2&3/OP Nos.5&6
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Moga in C.C. No. 35 of 2020.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. A.S. Saini, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate
SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :
The Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 i.e. Gian Chand Rang Wala Memorial Hospital & Ors., have filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Paramjit Kaur had been Partly Allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission. FA No.1078 of 2022 3
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that Paramjeet Kaur-Complainant during her pregnancy had taken treatment from OPs No.3&4. On the asking of OP No.3 the Complainant got conducted the blood test from Focus Clinical Laboratory, Moga on 18.10.2013. She had also undergone Endocrinology from local branch of SRL Diagnostic Laboratory, Moga on 19.10.2019. Both the test reports of the Complainant were normal. Furthermore, OP No.2 had got conducted another test of the Complainant Antenatal Ultrasound on 02.11.2019. The report of the ultrasound was also normal. During the treatment of 6/7 months of her pregnancy, the Complainant had approached OP-Hospital for ultrasound but they asked her to get it done in the 9th month of pregnancy. The Complainant wanted to know the health of the baby and she had requested the OPs to get her ultrasound done. It was got conducted by OP No.2 on 03.01.2020 and the health of the baby was reported as good. Again her blood test was got conducted from Focus Clinical Report on 03.03.2020, which was also normal. OPs No.3&4 had refused to attend the Complainant because of lockdown and had also denied to prescribe any medicine. Thereafter, the Complainant had visited the OP Hospital on 14.04.2020 where OP No.2 had conducted her scan had advised her to immediately get admitted in the Hospital for delivery through caesarean operation. She was not explained as to why an emergency operation was planned by the OPs.
4. On 15.04.2020 at about 12.00 pm, her caesarean operation was conducted and a male child was born. The Complainant was shifted to ward after 2 hours of operation. However, the Doctor had not handed over the baby to her. She was informed that baby was under treatment. After 2 hours, OP No.3 had handed over the child to her but at that time the head FA No.1078 of 2022 4 of the baby was covered with a cap. OP No.3 had informed her that the baby was having good health and was in sound health condition. As a practice, a patient remains in hospitalized for 4-5 days after caesarean operation but the OP had instructed the Complainant to leave the hospital. The doctor had not discharged her. The OP after checking the baby on 17.04.2020, had informed her/attendants that the baby was in good health. She had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- on her discharge. Before leaving the Hospital, the baby got convulsions/attack. The baby was immediately taken to Dr. Arun Aggarwal, Child Specialist. Said doctor, after removing the cap of the baby from his head had disclosed that there was a wound on the left side of the head of the baby which had been stitched. There was severe bleeding from that wound. OPs had not disclosed the Complainant about causing any such wound to the baby during the caesarean operation. It was done to conceal grave negligence committed by the OPs. Dr.Arun Aggarwal had referred the baby to Dr.Ravi Bansal, Chandigarh Hospital, Kotkapura. This was done so as the baby was in critical medical condition. The baby was admitted in the said hospital for treatment upto 22.04.2020. He remained on ventilator in the said Hospital. Thereafter, Dr.Ravi Bansal referred the baby to PGI, Chandigarh. The baby was to be shifted to PGI in ventilator equipped Ambulance. During the journey to PGI, Chandigarh, the medical condition of the baby started deteriorating. He was immediately admitted in SPS Hospital, Ludhiana which was situated on the way to Chandigarh. The Doctors at SPS Hospital, Ludhiana informed the Complainant that at the time of head injury, the functioning of brain of the baby was effected. Due to damage to the brain his other vital organs had been effected due to non-supply of blood. The Doctors of SPS Hospital started dialysis on the baby. The doctors of the said hospital had informed the complainant/attendants that FA No.1078 of 2022 5 the baby would not survive for long. Eventually, the baby had expired on 24.04.2020.
5. The Complainant had lodged the Complaint about this incident with Police Station, Moga on 25.04.2020. Thereafter, a postmortem of the baby was conducted at Civil Hospital, Moga where the doctor had noted the cause of the death of the baby was negligence of the OPs. The doctors are known as life savers whereas in the case of the complainant and her baby the doctors had committed grave medical negligence.
6. Stating the act of the OPs to be a case of 'deficiency in service', unfair trade practice as well as 'medical negligence', the following reliefs were sought:-
(i) The OPs be directed to pay Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation on account of suffering from mental tension and agony, loss of child, loss of love and affection of the child, due to lack of service, medical negligence by the OPs;
(ii) Rs.2,45,000/- expenditure incurred on medical treatment of the baby; and
(iii) Rs.25,500/- being the litigation expenses.
7. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 had filed their written statement. All the allegations of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and medical negligence were denied. It was pleaded that OP No.1-Hospital was Super Specialty Hospital, having all required equipment/qualified & experienced staff. There was neither any document on record, which could prove any kind of medical negligence nor any expert medical opinion had been tendered by the Complainant. It was admitted that the Complainant had visited OP No.3 for antenatal care during pregnancy. She was advised accordingly. On 02.11.2019 & 03.11.2020, the patient had visited OP No.3, FA No.1078 of 2022 6 who advised her for early pregnancy and Ultrasound Scan. As per standard medical practice, Ultrasonography (USG) was routinely conducted during 6th, 7th and growth scan in the 8th month of pregnancy. In 8th month, the patient did not come for scan and only visited on 14.04.2020 during 9th month. On the asking of OP No.3 about why she did not come for ultrasound in 8th month, the patient had replied that she was unable to visit due to lockdown and curfew. In the scan report dated 14.04.2020, the baby had Foetus Asymmetrical Growth Restriction, Severe Fetoplacental Insufficiency and Protective Amniotic Fluid was towards the lower side. OP No.3 had immediately informed the patient and her husband about serious condition of the patient/baby. She was advised immediate admission to the hospital. The patient was provided proper and regular monitoring during her stay and there was no negligence. Since the Protective Amniotic Fluid was towards lower side, therefore during caesarean surgery on 15.04.2020 when incision was given in uterus inadvertently a very small nick cut had occurred on baby's scalp measuring about 1 cm. Said cut was immediately identified and managed by applying small stich on the scalp. The father of the baby had been informed about the small cut and the reason as to why it had occurred. After the delivery the baby had cried, which means that there was no harm to the baby due to said cut. The baby was safely handed over to his father after complete observation of one hour. Upto 17.04.2020 the baby remained normal and taking feed. However, in the evening, family members had informed that baby was not taking feed properly. Thereafter OP No.3 had advised the Complainant to consult Dr. Arun Aggarwal-child specialist. The doctor found that baby had Hypoglycemia and referred him to Chandigarh Hospital, Kotkapura for further treatment. The Complainant was discharged from the OP-Hospital on 17.04.2020 in a stable condition. FA No.1078 of 2022 7
8. Thereafter, the baby was admitted for medical treatment at various hospitals. The said hospitals had not impleaded as party in the Complaint. Therefore, the Complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Abnormalities were reported in the baby after delivery. The baby was diagnosed having Feto-Placental Insufficiency, Amniotic Fluid was towards lower side, Hypoglycemia, severely low WBC, severe Thrombocytopenia, Sepsis, Seizures, Respiratory failure and Acute Kidney Injury. All these medical conditions had no relation with the small cut on the scalp. After the death of the baby, father of the child had visited the hospital of OPs with 20-25 person and had threatened to defame the professional reputation of the OPs.
9. It was further mentioned in reply that the patient and her attendants themselves acted negligently as they had not taken complete medical treatment of the baby. They had left the Hospital against medical advice. After the incident was reported to the police, Medical Board was constituted. A detailed inquiry had been conducted by the medical board and it was reported that "in our opinion, death of baby of Mrs. Paramjit Kaur does not seem to occur due to stitch on the head or due to fall of the baby." The post-mortem report clearly showed that the death of the baby did not occur due to small cut on the head. No medical negligence proved on the part of the OPs.
10. Insurance Companies-OPs No.5&6 also denied their liability as no medical negligence had been proved on the part of the OPs.
11. After considering the contents of the Complaint and the replies thereof filed by the Opposite Parties as well as on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide order FA No.1078 of 2022 8 dated 03.10.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para- 20 is reproduced as under:
"20. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4, jointly and severally, to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupee Five Lacs only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.06.2020 till its actual realization. Any application pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stands disposed off accordingly. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission..."
12. The aforesaid order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments and grounds.
13. Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that there was no evidence on record, which could prove any kind of medical negligence in the treatment of the Complainant and her new born baby. On lodging the Complaint with Police by the husband of the Complainant, Medical Board was constituted. The said Board had conducted detailed enquiry and it was concluded that the death of the baby did not occur due to stitches on the Head/fall of the baby. It was argued that the District Commission had wrongly rejected the said report by saying that there was no affidavit of the Members of Medical Board was tendered. The Board was constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Moga and the report was submitted by considering the Medical FA No.1078 of 2022 9 Records/Post mortem Report/Statements of the parties. It was further reiterated that the small cut on the head of the baby had been immediately treated. It had no relevance with the death of the baby. The District Commission had wrongly concluded that scarring and damage may create risks to other body organs to be injured. The District Commission ignored the fact that the baby had been treated in different Hospitals. The said Hospitals were not impleaded as party in the Complaint, whereas they were necessary parties to establish the exact cause of death of the baby. The Complainant had failed to point out any kind of medical negligence on the part of the OPs. The Medical Board had also exonerated the OPs from any kind of medical negligence. The impugned order was completely perverse, illegal and erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, ignoring the factual position, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside.
14. On the other hand, Sh. A.S. Saini, Advocate learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant has argued that the medical negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 to 4 had clearly been proved. The OPs themselves had admitted that on 15.04.2020, during caesarean surgery, when incision was given on uterus, the cut had occurred on scalp of the baby. Though it has been contended by OPs that the cut had occurred due to low Protective Amniotic Fluid yet the OPs cannot be exonerated from the negligence committed by them. It was the duty of the Appellants to do their job with much caution as they were very well aware that life of the mother and baby were at risk due to their negligence. Therefore, carelessness on the part of the OPs during surgery had been clearly proved. Their negligence had caused the death of new baby. Dr. Arun Bansal and SPS Hospital, Ludhiana clearly disclosed that from the time of injury on the head of the baby, the brain of the baby was not functioning and his health had entered into critical stage. Due to non- FA No.1078 of 2022 10 supply of blood, his other vital organs had been effected. Learned Counsel has submitted that the District Commission had passed a well-reasoned order dated 03.10.2022, which may be upheld.
15. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Companies had denied their liability as the Medical Board had opined that there was no medical negligence during the caesarean surgery and treated the child immediately. The Medical Board had clearly exonerated the Appellants from any kind of medical negligence during surgery/treatment.
16. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments submitted by the parties and all relevant documents available on the file. We have also gone through the judgments cited by both the parties.
17. Facts relating to the filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, issuance of notice, raising of oral arguments by learned Counsel for the parties and passing of impugned order dated 03.10.2022 by the District Commission, thereafter filing of present Appeal before this Commission by the Appellants are not in dispute.
18. The issue for adjudication before us as to whether the OPs No.1-4 were negligent for causing cut/nick on the left side of scalp of the baby during caesarean operation conducted upon the Complainant-Paramjit Kaur by them.
19. To deal with the aforesaid issue, we have gone through the documents tendered by the parties. It pertinent to mention the following sequence of events involved in the case in hand FA No.1078 of 2022 11
1. The baby was born on 15.04.2020. In the evening of 17.04.2020, baby stopped taking feed.
2. He was referred to Dr.Arun Aggarwal, Child Specialist. He had diagnosed that the baby was suffering from Hypoglycemia.
3. Dr.Arun Aggarwal, had referred the baby to Chandigarh Hospital, Kotakpura on 17.04.2020.
4. The baby was admitted in Chandigarh Hospital, Kotakpura, where he was under treatment upto 22.04.2020. Thereafter, the baby was referred to PGI, Chandigarh.
5. When the baby was being shifted to PGI Chandigarh 22.04.2020 fully equipped Ambulance, his condition had worsened. The Complainant and other attendants had to admit the baby to SPS Hospital, Ludhiana.
6. Thereafter, the Complainant and her family members left SPS hospital against medical advice (LAMA) on 24.04.2020.
7. Eventually, the baby had expired on 25.04.2020. A careful perusal of the sequence of events, arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and the order passed by the District Commission, it has transpired that the District Commission had not considered the opinion of Board of Doctors. In fact it has substituted its observation with their own opinion by recording that the doctors/Medical Board have a tendency to protect other doctors by showing favoritism.
20. Further, the District Commission had recorded its observations in absence of any Expert Medical opinion on the medical condition of the baby which could have established that as to whether the cut suffered by him during the caesarean operation could lead to complicated medical FA No.1078 of 2022 12 conditions like Feto-Placental Insufficiency, Amniotic Fluid was towards lower side, Hypoglycemia, severely low WBC, severe Thrombocytopenia, Sepsis, Seizures, Respiratory failure and Acute Kidney Injury. Therefore, the District Commission had neither considered the opinion of Medical Board nor it had taken expert Medical opinion from Specialist doctor. Whereas there are many judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that medical expert opinion is crucial to prove medical negligence. More so, when the issue is beyond knowledge of a common man. The expert opinion is essential to determine in case a doctor has breached the standard of care, but a failure to do so cannot be construed as medical negligence as held in landmark cases/judgments like "Jacob Methew Vs. State of Punjab", (2005) 3 CPJ 92, and "Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors.", (2009) 9 SCC
709. In the case in hand requires medical expert opinion as discussed above.
21. Furthermore, the aforesaid sequence of events shows that the baby was discharged from the OP Hospital on 17.04.2020 and he had expired on 25.04.2020. In between the discharge and demise, he was hospitalized in Chandigarh Hospital Kotakpura and SPS Hospital, Ludhiana. It has been alleged that the doctors of aforesaid hospitals had opined that the new born baby had expired due to the injury suffered by him on his scalp during the cesarean operation conducted by the OPs. To establish the said fact, it was important to implead the said hospitals/doctors as parties in the Complaint whereas it has not been done so.
22. In light of aforesaid observations of the District Commission, we do not hesitate to observe that the findings recorded by the District Commission without having any medical expert opinion on record are FA No.1078 of 2022 13 baseless. Besides there is non-joinder of necessary parties in the Complaint in hand as discussed in para No.21. Therefore, in said context the impugned order passed by the District Commission is patently flawed. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, it is important to remand the case to the District Commission to decide the case afresh by impleading necessary parties in the case and by obtaining medical expert opinion.
23. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Appellants is allowed. The order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Commission with the direction to decide the case afresh by impleading necessary parties and obtaining medical expert opinion. All efforts be made to decide the case expeditiously as early as possible.
24. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 20.01.2026.
25. The Appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission and deposited an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in compliance of orders dated 14.12.2022. Said amounts along with interest which has accrued on the amount deposited by the Appellants, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
26. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed off. FA No.1078 of 2022 14
27. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) December 04, 2025 MEMBER (Rupinder 2)