Legal Analysis on Jurisdiction and Medical Negligence

Delve into the intricate legal analysis by the court in a recent case focusing on jurisdiction and medical negligence. The court’s detailed examination of these aspects sheds light on the complex interplay of legal principles and their application in real-world scenarios. Stay tuned to uncover the insightful findings and conclusions drawn by the court in this significant legal matter.


  • Complaint against Safdarjung Hospital rejected due to no denial of requiring medical care for the premature baby.
  • Union of India and Safdarjung Hospital have challenged the order of the NCDRC.
  • Safdarjung Hospital found liable to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakhs for negligence.
  • Safdarjung Hospital referred patient to specialized facility with consent of complainant.
  • Complaint against Sarvodaya Hospital dismissed by District Forum.
  • NCDRC allowed revision of Sarvodaya Hospital, exonerating it of medical negligence but holding Safdarjung Hospital liable for compensation.
  • NCDRC decision based on Indian Medical Association v V P Shantha case.
  • Grievance against Sarvodaya Hospital regarding misrepresentation of Nursery ICU facilities found unsubstantiated.
  • Baby not initially placed in Nursery ICU at Safdarjung Hospital, admitted to General Ward and later to General ICU.
  • Original complaint alleged medical negligence against both Sarvodaya Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital.
  • SCDRC held Sarvodaya Hospital guilty of medical negligence and directed it to pay compensation of Rs 2,00,000
  • Complaint against Safdarjung Hospital was not maintainable
  • NCDRC allowed revision petition challenging adverse finding against Safdarjung Hospital
  • NCDRC sustained finding of medical negligence against Safdarjung Hospital and directed it to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakhs
  • NCDRC concluded Sarvodaya Hospital was not guilty of medical negligence
  • NCDRC found SCDRC’s decision on Safdarjung Hospital’s jurisdiction contrary to Indian Medical Association case
  • Safdarjung Hospital was a party in the NCDRC proceedings and heard in the revision filed by Sarvodaya Hospital

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Arbitration Petition Limitation Period


  • Sarvodaya Hospital represented by Mr. Shantanu Sagar has appealed
  • Mr. Dinesh Kumar, on behalf of the original complainant, has opposed the appeal

Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142


  • The NCDRC reversed the finding on maintainability in a revision by Sarvodaya Hospital.
  • The Court left the question of jurisdiction open for a future case where factual foundation can be laid by the Union of India and Safdarjung Hospital.
  • The judgment of the NCDRC was affirmed in the present case based on the small quantum of claim not warranting intervention.
  • Safdarjung Hospital did not challenge the factual basis of the finding on jurisdiction by the NCDRC.
  • The award in the present case was for a small amount of Rs 2 lakhs, unchallenged by the complainant.
  • The Court highlighted the need for a proper challenge before the consumer fora and in the absence of factual foundation in pleadings and evidence.
  • Sarvodaya Hospital challenged the SCDRC order regarding Safdarjung Hospital’s jurisdiction under the Act.
  • The Court clarified that a hospital providing free services to a category of patients would not be outside the jurisdiction of consumer fora.
  • The SCDRC’s attempt for ‘complete justice’ was deemed inappropriate due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142.
  • No other factual material was provided to determine if Safdarjung Hospital falls outside the Act’s purview as interpreted in Indian Medical Association.
  • The issue of whether Safdarjung Hospital is governed by the Act, especially under Section 2(1)(o), was left open for determination in an appropriate case.
  • The impugned NCDRC judgment was not to be cited as a precedent, and the issue, along with any other arising issues, was open for adjudication in a suitable case.
  • Service is defined as any service made available to potential users.
  • It includes banking, financing, insurance, transport, energy supply, housing construction, entertainment, and news provision.
  • It does not include services rendered free of charge or under a personal service contract.
  • The appeal will not be entertained solely on the basis of the small quantum involved in the case.
  • The issue regarding the quantum involved is left open for further consideration.

Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election


  • Payment of Rs 2 lakhs in compliance of NCDRC order to be made to original complainant within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order
  • Appeal is dismissed with clarifications provided
  • Time limit to pay Rs 2 lakhs extended
  • Pending application, if any, is disposed of

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. N. K. SRIVASTA (2020 INSC 462)

Case Number: C.A. No.-002823-002823 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

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