State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Pankaj Trivedi S/O. Late Bhola Nath ... vs Narajan Singh on 26 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.265 of 2025
Date of institution : 01.04.2025
Reserved on : 10.12.2025
Date of Decision : 26.12.2025
1. Dr.Pankaj Trivedi, Neurosurgeon, Vasal Hospital Private Limited
37, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar-144-008.
2. Vasal Hospital Private Limited, 37, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar-
144-008, through Sunil Sethi, Hospital Manager, Vasal Hospital.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2
Versus
1. Naranjan Singh aged about 67 years, S/o Sh.Thakur Dass.
2. Jaspal Kaur, aged about 60 years, W/o Naranjan Singh.
Both residents of Vill. Kangana Bet, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS
Nagar, Punjab.
........Respondents No.1&2/Complainants
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., T.F. 15, Third 88, The
Mall Ludhiana Punjab-141-001, through its Authorized
Representative/Manager.
......Proforma Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3
2) First Appeal No.462 of 2025
Date of institution : 29.05.2025
Reserved on : 10.12.2025
Date of Decision : 26.12.2025
1. Naranjan Singh aged 69 years, S/o Thakur Dass, R/o Village
Kangana Bet, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.
2. Jaspal Kaur, aged 62 years, W/o Naranjan Singh S/o Thakur
Dass, R/o Village Kangana Bet, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS
Nagar.
....Appellants/Complainants
FA No.265 of 2025 2
Versus
1. Dr.Pankaj Trivedi, Neurosurgeon, S/o Bhola Nath Trivedi, Vasal
Hospital Pvt. Ltd., 37-Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar-144008,
Punjab.
2. Vasal Hospital Pvt. Ltd., 37-Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar-144008,
Punjab, through Dr.Pankaj Trivedi.
......Respondents No.1&2/Opposite Parties No.1&2
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office: TF-
15, Third 88, The Mall, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab through its
Authorized Representative.
......Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the order dated 11.02.2025
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Nawanshahr in CC No.99 of 2024.
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:- (in FA No.265 of 2025) For the appellants : Sh.Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Adv. For respondents No.1&2: Ms.Vibha Nagar, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Sh.Sachin Ohri, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :
By this common order of ours, the aforementioned two First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.265 of 2025 titled as "Dr.Pankaj Trivedi & Anr. Vs. Naranjan Singh & Ors.", filed by the Appellants/Opposite FA No.265 of 2025 3 Parties No.1&2 and First Appeal No.462 of 2025 titled as "Naranjan Singh & Anr. Vs. Dr.Pankaj Trivedi & Ors.", filed by the Respondents No.1&2/Complainants shall be disposed off/decided by the common order as same questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2 First Appeal No.265 of 2025 has been filed by the Appellants/OPs No.1&2 under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SBS Nagar, Nawanshahr (in short 'the District Commission') whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants had been allowed. FA No.462 of 2025 has been filed by Respondents No.1&2/Complainants for modification/enhancement of the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
3. However, the facts are being extracted from FA No.265 of 2025 titled as "Dr.Pankaj Trivedi & Anr. Vs. Naranjan Sing & Ors.", filed by the Appellants/OPs No.1&2.
4. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.
First Appeal No.265 of 2025
5. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainants in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainants have four children, one child Mr.Dilraj FA No.265 of 2025 4 Singh (since deceased) was the younger son of the Complainants. Dilraj Singh was the driver of heavy duty vehicle. He was issued license by United State of Emirates. He was working as Tralla driver since March 2021. He was drawing a salary of Rs.1,25,000/- per month. The Complainants were fully dependent upon him.
6. In the month of March 2024, Mr.Dilraj Singh felt some pain in the back. With the passage of time, the pain in his spine started increasing. He had consulted the doctors at Dubai, he was advised bed rest by them. As per advice of his parents i.e. Complainants he returned to India on 10.04.2024 to get medical treatment. Initially, he had visited to Hope Hospital, SBS Nagar where he was examined by Dr.Vikramadity Singh. Said doctor was a specialist of Bones and Neurosurgery. He got treatment from the said hospital two weeks but he did not get any relief from there.
7. Further, on the advice of doctor who was known to the Complainant No.1, Dilraj Singh was taken to hospital of OP situated at Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar on 09.05.2024. OP No.2/Dr. Pankaj Trivedi had attended Dilraj Singh. He had noted his medical history/symptoms. Thereafter, he was advised to get X-ray as well as MRI of lower spine. The OP had got his MRI conducted on 09.05.2024. Apart from other findings the Radiologist Dr.Bhavdeep Mangat MD of the OP gave report wherein there was a possibility of Metastatic Bone Deposits. The OP No.2 had also reaffirmed the report that patient Dilraj Singh was having multiple doubtful tissues in spine. He had recorded "Secondary?? to rule out". Instead of getting any second opinion, OP No.2 had advised the patient fixation of FA No.265 of 2025 5 implant plates in the spine. He was also advised to get himself admitted in the hospital of OP i.e. Vasal Hospital. As per advice of OP No.2, Complainants and Dilraj Singh went to the hospital of OP. They again met OP No.2. Thereafter, Dilraj Singh was admitted to the hospital on 13.05.2024. The Complainants had deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- through cheque as demanded by the OP. The OP had conducted a test of spine of Dilraj Singh on 13.05.2024. The OPs had further advised him to get investigation done from Patel Hospital Jalandhar on 14.05.2024.
8. Thereafter, bone scan and ultrasound was done at the Patel Hospital. In the report of Patel Hospital Jalandhar, there was a specific mention by Dr.Rajesh Sachdev "disseminated malignancy/skeletal metastasis" which means that the patient was suffering from cancer. The OPs had advised for PET scan for further evaluation and clinical correlation. From these reports, it was clear that there was some malignancy and that the patient was suffering from cancer. OPs did not disclose the risk of procedure conducted upon their son Dilraj Singh. It was kept secret from them. The OPs were negligent despite knowing the fact that Dilraj Singh was suffering from disease of cancer. They had intentionally and willfully operated upon Dilraj Singh just to make money.
9. Further it was mentioned in the Complaint that after procedure, the OPs had continued with the treatment to Dilraj Singh till 28.05.2024. However the condition of Dilraj Singh had started deteriorating. He was not able to move upon his legs and feel passing of stool etc. The Complainants had asked the doctors regarding his FA No.265 of 2025 6 deteriorating condition on 28.05.2024, the OPs had informed that Dilraj Singh was suffering from cancer. He had advised them to take him to cancer hospital. Thereafter, Dilraj Singh was taken to Homi Bhabha, New Chandigarh on 12.06.2024. The doctors of said Hospital had informed the Complainants that there was no chance of survival of their son. The doctors had also informed the Complainants that the patient would have lived a longer life in case he had not been operated by the doctors of OPs. Then the Complainants had taken Dilraj Singh to Mohandai Oswal, Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained admitted w.e.f. 15.06.2024 to 17.06.2024. Finally he had expired on 17.06.2024. Although, the OP had told the Complainants that it was package of Rs.2,50,000/-. They had also billed the Complainants with an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards tests/medicines and other miscellaneous charges. The Complainants had spent an amount of Rs.25,000/- in Homi Bhabha Chandigarh, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in Mohandai Oswal Hospital on his treatment. In total they had spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- on the treatment of their son. Dilraj Singh had expired due to negligence of the OPs. The Complainants had requested OPs a number of times to redress their grievances but till date, neither OPs had contacted them nor they paid any amount/refund of amount received by them under pretext of performing operation of son of the Complainants. Due to said act/conduct of OPs, the Complainants had filed the Complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation for caussing mental harassment including financial loss and other reliefs. FA No.265 of 2025 7
10. Upon issuance of notice, OPs No.1&2 had appeared and filed their joint written version by raising certain preliminary objections. It was averred that there was no negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OP No.2 had obtained valid Insurance Cover of Professional Indemnity from ICICI Lombard General Insurance vide professional indemnity policy which was valid during the period of medical services provided to the patient. OP No.2 was highly qualified Endoscopic Brain and Spine Surgeon having degree of MBBS, MS, MCh. He is a renowned doctor in his specialized field in the State of Punjab. Mr.Dilraj Singh patient had visited in the OPD on 02.05.2024 with a Complaint of severe back pain since 20 days. He was also having pain in right leg upto knee and pain in left leg. The MRI conducted upon the patient showed Pathological Fracture of L2 with multiple doubtful lesions in the spine. On examination, he was advised MRI-LS Spine Contrast along with dynamic X-Ray of LS Spine, USG Abdomen with bone scan to confirm provisional diagnosis of Metastasis of Lumbar Spine leading to pathological fracture of L2 Vertebrae. He was advised to get admitted in the hospital. However patient left the hospital after getting himself examined and thereafter patient came for admission on 13.05.2024. All basic investigations/special required tests were conducted to reaffirm the diagnosis. During the course of treatment was explained to the patient/attendants. A written consent was duly signed by the Complainant in the presence of Medical Officer/staff on 13.05.2024 allowing OPs to conduct surgical procedure as explained. As per medical literature of surgery in Spinal Metastasis, it is known FA No.265 of 2025 8 that in case of unbearable pain, Neurological deficit surgery is performed even in patient with shorter life expectancy. Therefore, OPs had offered best treatment to the patient to improve his quality of life to prevent continuous unbearable pain in spine. There was no negligence on the part of OPs. They had denied all other allegations levelled by the Complainant. They had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
11. OP No.3 had appeared and filed its separate written reply. It was averred that neither any expert opinion of a specialist had been tendered/placed on record nor any Medical Board was constituted by the Government/Punjab Medical Council. It was of utmost importance that the opinion rendered by expert in the same field to prove the allegations raised by the Complainants. The patient and his attendants, was duly explained about the diagnosis and line of treatment. The Complainant had submitted a duly signed written consent in the presence of Medical Officer and staff on 13.5.2024 As per the consent, permission was given to the OP to conduct surgical procedure on the patient. The patient was admitted on 13.05.2024 and was operated upon 16.05.2024. The biopsy report was received on 17.05.2024 which had confirmed Metastasis in Spine. The Biopsy Report was shared with the Complainants/patient. Thereafter, the patient was discharged on 28.05.2024 with an advise to get Radiography and Chemotherapy done. However, neither the patient came back for follow up nor visited the OPs No.1&2. Rest of the averments of the Complainants were denied by OP No.3. It had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint FA No.265 of 2025 9
9. By considering the averments made in the Complaint, the Complaint filed by the Complainants was allowed order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the District Commission. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
"11. In the light of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.4,04,550/- to complainants with interest 6% from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization. The complainants are also entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The OPs no.1 and 2 are given liberty to approach OP no.3/ICICI Lombard Insurance Company for reimbursement of the above said amount at their own level.
12. The compliance of the order be made by OP no.1 and 2 within 45 days from date of this order."
10. The Appellants/OP No.1&2 have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of arguments.
11. Mr.Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Advocate learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued on the similar lines as mentioned in the written statement. Learned Counsel has submitted that the Respondents/Complainants in the Complaint have alleged that the Appellants did not disclose to them about the fact that there were Metastasis Bone Deposits (Cancer) in the spine of patient Dilraj Singh. However, the said fact was evidence from the Test Reports dated 09.05.2024 (Pg.152) 13.05.2024 (Pg.157) and 14.05.2024 (Pg.158) wherein it is clearly mentioned that there is a possibility of FA No.265 of 2025 10 Metastasis Bone Deposits (Cancer) and malignancy in the Spine of Patient.
12. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Respondents/Complainant have further alleged that the Appellant did not disclose the risk of procedure to them. However, said contention is totally incorrect as before performing the surgery the Respondents were duly informed about the pros and cons of the surgery. Respondent No.1 had even signed a Consent Form dated 16.05.2024 (Pg.186) wherein in the exact medical condition of the patient was sated all the risks of procedure were duly informed to the attendants of the patient keeping in view the condition of health of patient who was bed ridden and having numbness in his legs.
13. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainants had not alleged any medical negligence against the Appellants in the Complaint. It is settled position of law that a medical professional can be held liable for medical negligence on one of the two findings, either he was not possessing the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or he did not exercise, with reasonable competence the skill which he possess. In the present case there is no averment in the Complaint which would fall within the aforesaid parameters. Therefore, the question of medical negligence does not arise at all. However, the District Commission had totally ignored the aforesaid facts and settled legal position and had wrongly allowed the Complaint.
14. Further it has been submitted that the District Commission while allowing the Complaint had held that Biopsy FA No.265 of 2025 11 should have been conducted before the surgery. It has further held that the patient should have been referred to a cancer specialist/oncologist. In addition to it the District Commission had also observed that by not referring the patient to oncologist, the Appellants were negligent in providing medical care to the patient. The District Commission had stepped in to the shoes of an expert and recorded findings against Appellants without calling for any expert report/opinion.
15. It has further been submitted that findings of the District Commission are totally perverse and illegal on two grounds i.e. Firstly, if a doctor chooses one course of treatment/action over the other course of treatment, it does not tantamount on merely on the ground that better alternative course or method of treatment was available. The said fact has been reinforced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "M.A.Biviji Vs. Sunita & Ors.", (2024) 2 SCC
242. Secondly, the District Commission on its own without calling for an expert opinion or report had concluded that the Biopsy should have been conducted before performing the surgery on the Patient. Such finding is not supported by any medical literature or expert report. Learned Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
16. Ms.Vibha Nagar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 has submitted that the Respondents/Complainants had filed the Complaint seeking refund of Rs.4,04,550/- of medical expenses, along with compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs due to the grave medical negligence and deficiency in service on the Appellants/OPs. The said FA No.265 of 2025 12 negligence had led to untimely death of their young son. The District Commission vide order dated 11.02.2025, had partly allowed the Complaint and granted certain reliefs. However, though the negligence and deficiency has been rightly established, but the Respondents/Complainants are aggrieved by the inadequate refund/meagre compensation/nominal interest. Said directions qua refund/compensation and litigation expenses were disproportionate and low. Learned Counsel has reiterated that the Respondents/Complainants have endured immense mental agony, pain, and trauma due to the untimely loss of their son due to the negligence of the OPs. Though the District Commission had acknowledged their suffering however it had only awarded exact amount spent by the Respondents/Complainants towards the medical bills/records presented before it. In addition to it, a meagre amount of Rs.50,000/- had been awarded as compensation. However, the District Commission had overlooked the factum of mental agony and trauma suffered by the Respondents/Complainants due to the unfortunate and sudden demise of their son.
17. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants has further submitted that the compensation, in law, must be just, fair, and equitable, guided by the principle of restitutio in integrum, i.e. the monetary compensation awarded should restore the victim to the position they would have occupied had the injury not occurred. Such compensation must reflect the true extent of the harm suffered, covering not only actual financial losses such as medical expenses, loss of income/earning capacity, but also the intangible but significant FA No.265 of 2025 13 elements of pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. In the present case, the compensation awarded is on lower side as per settled legal principles. The compensation should be just, fair, and proportionate. The Consumer Protection Act, being a benevolent legislation, mandates adequate recompense when the negligence has been established. Mere token amounts cannot serve the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384 has laid down principles for awarding just and adequate compensation in cases of medical negligence. The loss of a son is immeasurable; while emotional suffering cannot be quantified. However, the law requires monetary compensation by considering both the potential financial contribution of the child to the family and the invaluable loss of companionship and support. The District Commission while awarding compensation has failed to take into account certain crucial components of damages, namely pecuniary and non- pecuniary losses, future losses up to the date of trial, loss of income of the deceased, travel and incidental expenses, loss of consortium, as well as the pain, suffering and emotional distress endured by the Respondents/Complainants. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the District Commission is inadequate. The interest granted is meagre, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Commission have consistently awarded 9%-12% per annum in case of medical negligence to ensure justified relief. The litigation cost is also grossly insufficient, despite the prolonged proceedings and expenses incurred on documentation, legal representation, and travel. Further, the refund of medical expenses FA No.265 of 2025 14 has not been allowed in full despite documentary proof of Rs.4,04,550/-. The Respondents/Complainants have filed separate Appeal i.e. FA No.462 of 2025 for enhancement of compensation under all these heads/components to render the award just and equitable. Learned Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Appellants.
18. Mr.Sachin Ohri, Advocate, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has submitted that the District Commission had wrongly allowed the Complaint. The District Commission had failed to appreciate that the reimbursement under the claim can only be possible as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The direction to approach the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and without holding the ICICI Lombard liable for deficiency on part of the doctor (indemnified by Respondent No.3) Therefore, the finding of District Commission is liable to be set aside.
19. Further, learned Counsel has submitted that the Complainant had given written consent signed by him in the presence of the medical officer and staff on 13.05.2024 by permitting the OPs to conduct the surgical procedure. Thereafter, the patient was operated upon on 13.05.2024. After the surgery, the report of the Biopsy was received on 17.05.2024 confirming the diagnosis of Metastasis in Spine. The report of the Biopsy was shared with the patient. Thereafter the patient was discharged on 28.05.2024 and he was advised to undergo further treatment of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy. Thereafter, the patient did not come back for further FA No.265 of 2025 15 follow up with the OPs. Therefore, the assertions made by the Complainant in his complaint are without any basis. Further, the District Commission could not have recorded its observations without any expert opinion on record regarding the negligence committed by the Appellant doctor in performing the surgical operation. Therefore, the District Commission had wrongly allowed the Complaint without any opinion by the medical expert. Hence the same is liable to be set aside.
20. First Appeal No.462 of 2025 has been filed by the Complainants for enhancement/modification of the impugned order dated 11.02.2025. The Appellants/Complainants have made the following prayer in said Appeal:-
i. To refund medical expenses amounting to Rs.4,04,550/- as proved by documentary evidence.
ii. To enhance compensation for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
on account of causing mental agony, trauma, and loss of life of their son. To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the Complaint till realization. iii. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses as per the circumstances of the case and time taken. The Appellants/Complainants have prayed for acceptance of their Appeal.
21. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as Respondents. We have perused the FA No.265 of 2025 16 order dated 11.02.2025 as well as all the relevant documents available on both the files.
18. 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 11.02.2025 by the District Commission, thereafter filing of present Appeal before this Commission by the Appellants/OPs No.1&2 are not in dispute.
19. The issue for adjudication before us as to whether there was any medical negligence committed by the Appellant doctor in performing surgical procedure on patient Dilraj Singh?
20. For reaching to the right conclusion, we have gone through the following sequence of events:-
Date Particulars Page/Exhibits March 2021 Son of the Complainants namely Mr.Dilraj singh developed a back pain while he was working as a heavy-duty truck driver in UAE since March 2021.
Accordingly, the patient firstly took treatment in UAE. The doctors there had advised him bed rest. But he came back to India for further treatment.
10.04.2024 After coming back to India he had taken Para 4, Pg.37 treatment from Dr.Vikramaditya (Neurosurgeon) of Hope Hospital, Nawanshahr. He had taken treatment for two weeks. But he was not satisfied with the outcome of treatment.
09.05.2024 Patient had visited the Appellant Hospital Ex.C-1 with the complaint of backpain with pain.
FA No.265 of 2025 17Due to the said paid the movement in his legs had been adversely effected. The Appellant had diagnosed Pathological Fractures L2 with multiple doubtful lesions in spine. He had suggested MRI-
contrast LS spine, USG abdomen and bone scan. He had further recorded secondary?? To rule out.
He was further advised to get bone scan and USG abdomen done from Patel Hospital. The patient had further undergone MRI wherein it was concluded that the patient had Partial collapse of the L2 vertebral body with convex posterior vertebral margin which is leading to marked central canal stenosis with associated compression of the traversing cauda equine nerve roots. Multiple T1 hypointense foci within the visualized lumber vertebral bodies. Above mentioned findings raise possibility of Metastatic bone deposits.
The patient was further advised admission there was also a possibility of Metastatic Bone Deposits i.e. when cancer cells spread from their original site to bone. This was duly informed to the patient as well as his parents i.e. Respondents No.1&2 13.05.2024 After four (4) days, the Patient again Pg.157 came 13.05.2024. His back to Appellant on condition has worsened and power in both his limbs had reduced. Appellant again got all the necessary tests and as per the Test Report dated 13.05.2024 it FA No.265 of 2025 18 was again reported that he had pathological fractures in his spine and there was a possibility of metastatic bone deposits. Patient was admitted to the Appellant-Hospital on the same day itself.
14.05.2024 The Appellant got a Bone scan and Pg.158 Ultrasound of the Patient and as per Test Report dated 14.05.2024 it was reported that a there was malignancy/skeleton possibility metastases of (i.e., cancer).
16.05.2024 The Appellant operated upon the Patient Pg.186 Appeal on 16.05.2024 for L2 Paraplegia with Bladder & Bowel involvement. The doctor had also conducted D-12-L4 fixation with Decompression done under GA. A Consent Form (in Punjabi language) dated 16.05.2024 was also duly signed by Respondent No. 1/Complainant No.1 before the Surgery.
17.05.2024 Immediately upon operating, on the next Ex.C-7 day i.e., 17.05.2024 the Appellant also collected the samples of the patient for L2 Biopsy. The Report was received on 20.05.2024. It was reported that the samples are suggestive of Metastatic Deposits.
28.05.2024 In view of the report of Biopsy the patient Pg.145,146 was discharged on 28.05.2024 with medical condition of Parapledgia with Bladder Bowel Involvement. He was advised precautions on discharge for next three months. He was referred to Guru Ram Das Medical College for Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy. He was further advised to come up for follow up to the Appellant after seven (7) days.
FA No.265 of 2025 1912.06.2024 The patient took to Homi Bhabha Cancer Ex.C-26 Hospital Research Centre in New Chandigarh, Punjab on 12.06.2024 15.06.2024 Thereafter on 15.06.2024 he was taken Ex.C-14 to Mohandai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana 17.06.2024 In the death summary it was recorded that the patient was a known case of D12-L4 fixation with Decompression Surgery and Septic Shock, Respiratory Acidosis AKI, Hypercalcemia. He was admitted in Emergency Department with generalized weakness, fever and drowsy state from 2-3 days. As per the death summary, the patient/relative denied for mechanical ventilation (DNR) and negative consent was taken for the same.
The patient was declared dead on 17.06.2024. The cause of death was septic shock with Metastatic Deposits, Respiratory Acidosis and AKI.
21. A perusal of aforesaid sequence of events and corresponding documents tendered by the parties, shows that the patient Dilraj Singh was discharged from the Appellant Hospital on 28.05.2024 and he had expired on 17.06.2024 at Mohandai Owsal Hospital. During the intervening period between 28.05.2024 and 17.06.2024, the patient had also visited Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital, New Chandigarh. To establish as to whether the patient Dilraj Singh had expired due to medical negligence committed by the OPs, it is of utmost important that the doctors/hospital where the FA No.265 of 2025 20 patient Dilraj Singh had gone for further medical treatment be impleaded as necessary parties. Therefore, in the said context the Complaint is suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.
22. It has also been observed that neither the Complainants have tendered any medical expert opinion from a Cancer Specialist doctor/oncologist nor the District Commission had sought any such expert opinion. Whereas there are a number of 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 for determining if a doctor has breached standard of care, but a failure to do so does not automatically equate to medical negligence as has been held in landmark cases 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.
23. We have also gone through the order passed by the District Commission wherein it has been observed in para 9 and 10 as under:
We are of the view that Biopsy should have been done before major surgery rather OPs no.1 and 2 conducted the surgery without evaluating the pros and cons of the doubt of cancer.
10. In our considered opinion such, in such a situation the patient should have been referred to a cancer specialist/onocologist for his opinion rather than conducting the surgery in a hurried manner by not consulting/referring the patient to the oncologist, OPs no.1 and 2 are negligent in providing medical care to the patient (since deceased). FA No.265 of 2025 21
24. In light of aforesaid observations of the District Commission we do not hesitate to observe as to how such finding could have been given by it without having any medical expert opinion on record. 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, it is important to remand the case to the District Commission to decide afresh by impleading necessary parties and obtaining medical expert opinion.
25. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Appellants is allowed (FA No.265 of 2025). The order dated 11.02.2025 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 by obtaining medical expert opinion. All efforts be made to decide the case expeditiously as early as possible.
26. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.01.2026.
27. The Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,39,157/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Said amount along with interest which has accrued on the amount deposited by the Appellant, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
FA No.265 of 2025 22FA No.462 of 2025
28. This Appeal has been filed by the Complainants for enhancement/modification of the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 In light of the observations made in FA No.265 of 2025, the case is remanded to the District Commission as observed in aforesaid Appeal (FA.No.265 of 2025). Accordingly, this Appeal (FA No.462 of 2025) is disposed off and the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the District Commission is set aside.
29. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed off.
30. The Appeals 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) MEMBER December 26, 2025 (Rupinder 2)