IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3683 OF 2008

Kailash Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. and Anr.      … Appellant(s)

Versus

Sanjeev Duggal and Ors.        … Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.  

By the  impugned order,  the National  Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission (for

short,  “the Commission”),  while awarding compensation of  Rs.2,50,000/- along with damages of

Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents in a case of medical negligence, gave the

following directions :

“A copy of this  order be sent to U.P. State Medical  Council  and Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for enquiry and further action, to see if such a Hospital, i.e., 1st OP, and the Second OP, still should be there where they are, i.e., whether they should continue  to  be  registered  by  the  respective  Registering  Authority,  for  if  they  are allowed to continue to be there, in our view, they may be causing more harm than good  to  the  Society/  patients,  if  they  are  allowed  to  continue  to  work  in  such  a dishonest manner.”

…2/-

- 2 -

Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that his

clients are not pressing their challenge to the award of compensation, damages and costs, but the

direction given to the State Medical Council and Government of U.P. to take action against them

may be set aside because a solitary instance of the alleged medical negligence cannot justify closure

of the hospital.  

In our opinion, the award of compensation etc., made by the Commission does not suffer

from any legal error warranting interference by this Court, but, at the same time, we are convinced

that  the  Commission  was  not  at  all  justified  in  giving  the  direction  extracted  hereinabove.   It

appears  that  the  said  direction was  given by the  Commission out  of  sheer  anguish  and not  on

consideration of any sound legal principle.  

Ordinarily, we would have issued notice to the respondents, but in the facts and circumstances of

the case, we do not propose to adopt that course because the respondents will be put to unnecessary

cost of litigation without any justifiable reason.

                  …3/-

- 3 -

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the direction given by the Commission to

the State Medical Council and Government of U.P. to take action against the appellants is set aside.

However, liberty is given to the respondents, in case they are so advised, to move this Court for

recall/modification of this order.

  ………………………………………J.    [B.N. AGRAWAL]

  ………………………………………J.    [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, July 08, 2008.