Case at a Glance
The family of a 66-year-old cardiac patient treated at Apollo BSR Hospital, Bhilai, in August 2015 won ₹19 lakh with 6% interest from the District Commission for alleged medical negligence. The Chhattisgarh State Commission reversed that award, relying on a Chhattisgarh Medical Council opinion that there was no medical negligence and on hospital records of consents and family updates. The National Commission dismissed the family’s revision, holding that the District Commission erred in ignoring the expert report, that the State Commission’s findings were plausible and not perverse, and that its revisional jurisdiction is narrow.
The patient, aged 66, was admitted to Apollo BSR Hospital, Junwani (Bhilai), on 21 August 2015 with pulmonary oedema; three coronary arteries were found blocked. Hospital records quoted in the State Commission’s order show a note to “prepare for CABG”, that the cardiac surgeon declined surgery as the patient’s condition was not suitable, and that a stent was to be placed by angioplasty. The records also show consents taken from time to time, including ventilator consent from the patient’s son, and family meetings on 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28 August 2015. The family, represented by Raj Panjwani, Smt. Sushila Panjwani and Vikram Panjwani, alleged medical negligence against the Chief Cardiologist, Dr. Dilip Ratnani, and the Director of the hospital.
On 10 July 2024 the District Commission allowed the complaint and held the respondents jointly and severally liable for ₹19 lakh with 6% interest. In appeal (FA/546/2024), the Chhattisgarh State Commission, by order dated 10 March 2025, reversed that decision. It relied on the Chhattisgarh Medical Council’s opinion, based on a subject expert, that there was no medical negligence, found that the patient was not in a condition to be taken to Hyderabad, and noted that the complainants led no expert evidence. The family then filed a revision before the National Commission.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the District Commission, which had no medical expert members, disregard a State Medical Council’s expert opinion of no negligence, and could the National Commission in revision disturb the State Commission’s findings based on that report?
Expert Opinion and the Limits of Revision
Counsel for the family argued that the Medical Council’s report gave no reasons and did not consider the material facts, and orally submitted that a copy had not been given to them. The Commission was “unable to accept” the latter submission, since the report had been produced before the District Commission and no specific objection was raised there. It held that the District Commission’s order did not even refer to or appreciate the report, and that, having no medical experts, it erred in ignoring it. The Commission relied on Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 02 SC CK 0078, V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 03 SC CK 0009 and Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, (2022) 05 SC CK 0103 for the principle that a fact-finding forum should not substitute its own lay assessment for a qualified medical expert’s opinion.
On the scope of revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (parallel to Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act), the Commission relied on Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 03 SC CK 0042, Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, (2022) 01 SC CK 0062 and Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., (2022) 09 SC CK 0025, which describe the jurisdiction as narrow and bar interference with findings based on appreciation of evidence. It found that the State Commission’s findings “do not suffer from any perversity” and its conclusion was “factually plausible”, and so found no error that would justify invoking revisional powers.
What the Court Actually Held
- A District Commission without medical expert members erred in ignoring the State Medical Council’s expert opinion that there was no medical negligence.
- The plea that the complainants were not given a copy of the report was rejected, as the report was on record and no specific objection was raised before the District Commission.
- The State Commission’s findings, based on the expert report and hospital records of consents and family updates, were neither perverse nor implausible.
- Revisional jurisdiction is narrow; the revision petition “lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed”.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It underlines that in medical-negligence claims, expert evidence — or its absence — often decides the case.
- It reminds consumer fora that they cannot simply discard a Medical Council or expert report without reasons.
- It shows how limited a second appeal-like challenge is before the NCDRC in revision.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Patients’ Families
- Lead independent expert evidence in support of a negligence claim; the State Commission noted the complainants led none.
- If a Medical Council report goes against you, object to it specifically and on time before the District Commission.
- Hospital records of consents and family meetings will be read closely; keep your own record of events.
For Counsel
- Rely on Martin F. D’Souza and V. Kishan Rao where a forum disregards expert opinion without reasons.
- In NCDRC revisions, frame grounds around perversity or failure to consider evidence, not re-appreciation of facts.
- Challenge an adverse expert report on its reasoning before the fact-finding forum, not for the first time in revision.
Key Takeaways
- An expert Medical Council opinion of no negligence cannot be ignored by a lay forum without reasons.
- Complainants who lead no expert evidence face an uphill task in medical-negligence claims.
- The NCDRC will not re-appreciate evidence in revision if the State Commission’s view is plausible.
- The ₹19 lakh award stays reversed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a Medical Council report binding on a consumer commission?
The order does not say it is binding, but holds that a District Commission without medical experts erred in ignoring it without even referring to its contents.
Why did the NCDRC not reconsider the evidence?
Its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act, parallel to Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act, is narrow, and it found the State Commission’s findings plausible and not perverse.
What did the hospital records show?
As quoted from the State Commission’s order, the records showed repeated consents and family meetings, a note to prepare for CABG, and the cardiac surgeon’s view that the patient was not fit for surgery.
Conclusion
Raj Panjwani v. Dr. Dilip Ratnani follows a settled line: medical negligence must be proved, usually with expert support, and a consumer forum of lay members cannot set aside a qualified expert’s opinion on its own assessment. Once two fora have differed and the appellate view is plausible, the National Commission will not step in.
Practical takeaway: Build the medical-negligence case on expert evidence from the start, and contest any adverse expert report on its merits before the District Commission itself.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com