SC clears Chandigarh doctor of negligence in 20-year-old maternal death case

The tragedy dates back to December 2005, when 32-year-old Charanpreet Kaur, a Chandigarh lecturer and bank manager on deputation, was admitted to Deep Nursing Home in the eighth month of her pregnancy. After being induced, she delivered a baby boy at 2:40 am on December 22. The newborn did not survive despite immediate resuscitation attempts. Soon after, Kaur suffered an uncontrolled postpartum haemorrhage, a life-threatening complication where the uterus fails to contract after delivery.

Records show that blood was urgently requisitioned, additional specialists were consulted, and she was shifted to PGI Chandigarh — the only regional centre equipped for advanced intervention — but she was declared dead at 5:30 am. Mattewal alleged gross negligence in the management of bleeding, transfer arrangements, and record-keeping, filing a claim of nearly ₹1 crore before the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission in 2006.

In 2007, the State Commission held the doctor negligent for not verifying Kaur’s blood group and for delays in transfusion, awarding compensation of ₹20.26 lakh. The NCDRC in 2012 upheld the order in part but shifted liability solely onto Dr. Kochhar, citing antenatal lapses such as failure to insist on haematological and cardiological tests.

The Supreme Court has now struck down those findings. Writing for the bench, Justice Sanjay Kumar observed: “Our sympathies aside, we are called upon to examine the validity of the finding that Dr. (Mrs.) Kanwarjit Kochhar, the obstetrician-gynaecologist who conducted the delivery, is guilty of medical negligence. All the experts who constituted the five Medical Boards found that there was no negligence on her part or on the part of the nursing home.”

The court was particularly scathing about the NCDRC’s approach, noting that Mattewal’s complaint had focused only on post-delivery management and transfer, yet the Commission fastened liability for antenatal care. “The NCDRC clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings. It was not for it to travel beyond the pleadings in the complaint case and build up a new case on its own,” the bench held.

Reiterating established precedent, Justice Kumar cited Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005): “Simply because a patient did not favourably respond to the treatment given by a physician or if a surgery failed, the doctor cannot be held liable per se.” The judgment also underscored that courts and consumer fora “are not experts in medical science and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists.”

Allowing the appeal, the bench dismissed Mattewal’s complaint and ordered that the ₹10 lakh already paid be refunded in instalments, split between the insurer and the Kochhars. “In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs,” the ruling concluded.