NEERAJ SUD AND ANR.  versus JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1475, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1475 : 2024 INSC 825
Neeraj Sud and Anr.  
v. 
Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. 
(Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012)
25 October 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical 
treatment and liable for payment of compensation. Whether the 
NCDRC was justified in holding doctor negligent and awarding 
compensation.
Headnotes†
Negligence – Medical negligence – Complainants are father 
and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his 
left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by 
appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in 
a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – 
The State Commission, upon examination of the records, 
concluded that the complainants failed to establish any 
negligence or carelessness on part of the doctor – However, 
the NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in 
medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation – 
Correctness:
Held: It is found that doctor was a competent and a skilled doctor 
possessing requisite qualification to perform PTOSIS surgery and 
to administer the requisite treatment and that he had followed 
the accepted mode of practice in performing the surgery and 
that there was no material to establish any overt act or omission 
to prove negligence on his part – No evidence was adduced to 
prove that he had not exercised sufficient care or has
failed to 
exercise due skill in performing the surgery – It is settled that 
a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not 
possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has 
failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence – The 
* Author
1476
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that doctor 
or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill 
possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence – 
No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical 
field to prove that requisite skill possessed by doctor was not 
exercised by him in discharge of his duties – In other words,  
simply for the reason that the patient has not responded 
favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by 
a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be 
held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the 
doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence 
that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by  
him in discharging of his duties – Thus, the judgment and order of 
the NCDRC is hereby set aside and that of the State Commission 
is restored. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 20]
Negligence – Medical Negligence – Actionable negligence – 
Three constituents:
Held: It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context 
of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to 
exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential 
damage – However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment 
or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the 
medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable 
practice of the medical profession in
discharge of his duties – He 
cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better 
alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that 
more skilled doctors were there who could have administered 
better treatment. [Para 14]
Negligence – Medical Negligence – When a medical professional 
may be held liable for negligence:
Held: A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only 
when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or 
when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in 
giving the treatment – In the instant case, none of the above two 
essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in 
the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove 
that appellant had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which 
he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. 
[Para 15]
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1477
Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. 
Case Law Cited
Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Another [2005] Supp. 2 
SCR 307 : 2005 (6) SCC 1 – referred to.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench 
Division) English Law (1957) 1 WLR 582 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Negligence; Medical negligence; Eye surgery; Overt act or omission; 
Reasonable competence; Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2011 of the National 
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA 
No. 245 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012
Appearances for Parties
Rajesh Garg, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neha Matharoo, Mandeep Singh, Mahesh 
Kumar, Sudarshan Rajan, Ms. Srishti Sharma, Ramesh Rawat, 
Rohit Bhardwaj, Hitain Bajaj, Ashutosh Gupta, Aryan Ahmed, Amit 
Prasad, Ms. Ruchika Prasad, Ayodhya Prasad, Ms. Chanya Jaitly, 
Mayank Kshirsagar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1.	
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.	
Both the above appeals arise out of the common judgment and order 
dated 24.08.2011 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission,1 New Delhi deciding First Appeal No.245/2005 filed 
1	
Hereinafter referred to as ‘NCDRC’
1478
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by the complainants against Dr. Neeraj Sud and the Post Graduate 
Institute of Medical Education & Research,2 Chandigarh.
3.	
The complaint of the complainants i.e. Complaint Case No.29/1998 
regarding medical negligence against Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI 
was dismissed by the State Commission vide judgment and order 
dated 27.05.2005. Aggrieved by the above decision, the complainants 
preferred appeal before the NCDRC. After remand in the first round, 
the matter again came up before the NCDRC wherein the present 
impugned order has been passed and the complaint has been partly 
allowed. The judgment and order of the State Commission dismissing 
the complaint has been set aside holding that Dr. Neeraj Sud and 
the PGI are jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation 
of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as costs with 6% interest from the 
date of the complaint for the negligence in treatment.
4.	
Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI together have filed Civil Appeal No.272 
of 2012 aggrieved by the finding of NCDRC which states that they 
had not taken due care in the treatment and as such are liable for 
payment of the compensation and cost as aforesaid. 
5.	
The other appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.5526 of 2012 has been filed 
by the complainants. The complainants in the appeal have not 
claimed any enhancement though upon a reading of the contents, it 
is implicit that they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded 
and
that the same is inadequate. The main prayer in appeal is only 
to grant the special leave to petition against the judgment of the 
NCDRC but with no other prayer. The relief claimed in the appeal 
by the complainants has been drafted in a very casual and improper 
manner with no sense of responsibility. We deprecate the manner in 
which this appeal has been filed, but in the ends of justice, proceed 
to consider it on merits along with the tagged appeal.
6.	
The complainants are father and son. The son was a minor aged 
about 6 years when he was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his 
left eye (also known as ‘PTOSIS’ or ‘drooping eyelid’) for which a 
minor surgery was performed on 26.06.1996 by Dr. Neeraj Sud at 
PGI. The complainant alleges that there was no other defect in the 
eyes of the son and both eyes had normal 6/9 equal vision and the 
2	
Hereinafter referred to as ‘PGI’
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1479
Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. 
physical deformity diagnosed (PTOSIS, drooping eyelid) could have 
been cured by a minor operation which required lifting of the left 
eyelid a little to make it of the same size as the right eye but the 
said surgery was done in a most negligent manner. Instead of any 
improvement the condition of the eye further deteriorated post-surgery.
7.	
The complainants, thus through the complaint made to the State 
Commission claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the 
sufferings due to negligence of the doctor and a further sum of 
Rs.4,55,000/- towards the cost of the treatment, loss of studies etc. 
In defence, Dr. Neeraj Sud and the PGI admitted that the surgery 
was performed on 26.06.1996 by Dr. Neeraj Sud who is a qualified 
post-graduate in ophthalmology. He had three years of experience in 
eye surgeries including surgery of PTOSIS. During the period 1994-
1996 when Dr. Neeraj Sud was a Senior Resident at PGI, he was 
associated with about 74 PTOSIS operations. The complainant was 
given proper treatment with due care during operation and that the 
correction and reoccurrence of PTOSIS is a common complication of 
congenital ptosis which could have been set right by repeat surgery. 
The patient was not examined by Dr. Neeraj Sud after January, 1997 
as he was taken for treatment to Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Delhi and 
Dr. Daljit Singh Hospital, Amritsar. 
8.	
The complainants have not adduced
any evidence to establish any 
negligence in the performance of surgery or treatment on part of Dr. 
Neeraj Sud or the PGI. They mainly relied upon the medical records of 
the PGI which were obtained and considered by the State Commission. 
9.	
The State Commission, upon examination of the records, concluded 
that the complainants failed to establish any negligence or 
carelessness on part of the doctor in treating one of the complainants 
and that the doctor had not adopted any unacceptable medical 
practice which may have caused damage to the patient. Dr. Neeraj 
Sud was a duly qualified doctor possessing requisite professional 
skill and competence to perform the surgery. Therefore, neither Dr. 
Neeraj Sud nor the PGI can be held responsible for any negligence 
in the treatment. 
10.	 The aforesaid findings of the State Commission have been partly 
reversed by the NCDRC only on the basis of the re-examination of 
the record of the PGI which showed that the patient before operation 
had proper 6/9 vision in both the eyes and was suffering from a
1480
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
moderate PTOSIS with no history of double vision. However, post-
surgery, the condition of PTOSIS deteriorated from moderate to severe 
and the vision of the patient also fell down from 6/9 in both eyes 
to 6/18. The patient also suffered from double vision post-surgery. 
Thus, the NCDRC held that the doctor was apparently negligent in 
not giving proper treatment and was also careless in not performing 
the repeat surgery.
11.	 Deterioration of the condition of the patient post-surgery is not 
necessarily indicative or suggestive of the fact that the surgery 
performed or the treatment given to the patient was not proper or 
inappropriate or that there was some negligence in administering 
the same. In case of surgery or such treatment it is not necessary 
that in every case the condition of the patient would improve and 
the surgery is successful to the satisfaction of the patient. It is very 
much possible that in some rare cases complications of such nature 
arise but that by itself does not establish any actionable negligence 
on part of the medical expert.
12.	 The NCDRC itself acknowledged that Dr. Neeraj Sud had the 
necessary professional qualification and expertise to treat the patient 
but it has granted compensation only for the reason that he did not 
bring the requisite skill and care in the treatment of the patient. 
13.	 The said finding is based on no evidence insofar as the complainants 
have not adduced
any evidence to prove any negligence on part 
of the doctor rather have relied upon the medical records produced 
by the PGI. The said records merely demonstrate that post-surgery 
the condition of the patient had not improved but has deteriorated 
which as stated earlier may not be indicative of the negligence in 
the treatment of the patient.
14.	 It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical 
profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; 
(ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple 
lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient 
proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as 
the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession 
in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence 
merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment 
was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have 
administered better treatment.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1481
Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr. 
15.	 A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when 
he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when 
he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the 
treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing 
negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was 
brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised 
due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the 
patient and giving treatment to him.
16.	 When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is 
extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it 
would not be a case for actionable negligence. In a celebrated and 
very often cited decision in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management 
Committee (Queen’s Bench Division),3 it was observed that a doctor 
is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with the acceptable 
norms of practice unless there is evidence of a medical body of 
skilled persons in the field opining that the accepted principles/
procedure were not followed. The test so laid down popularly came 
to be known as Bolam’s test and stands approved by the Supreme 
Court in Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Another.4 If we 
apply the same in the present case, we would find that Dr. Neeraj 
Sood was a competent and a skilled doctor possessing requisite 
qualification to perform PTOSIS
surgery and to administer the 
requisite treatment and that he had followed the accepted mode of 
practice in performing the surgery and that there was no material 
to establish any overt act or omission to prove negligence on his 
part. As stated earlier, no evidence was adduced to prove that he 
had not exercised sufficient care or has failed to exercise due skill 
in performing the surgery.
17.	 In Jacob Mathews (supra) this Court held that a professional may 
be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite 
skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same 
with reasonable competence. The complainant has not adduced any 
evidence to establish that Dr. Neeraj Sud or the PGI were guilty of not 
exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold 
them liable for negligence. No evidence was produced of any expert 
3	
English Law (1957) 1 WLR 582
4	
[2005] Supp. 2 SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1
1482
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed by 
Dr. Neeraj Sood was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties. 
18.	 In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not 
responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered 
by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held 
liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of 
Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor 
failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of 
his duties.
19.	 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion 
that the NCDRC ought not to have interfered with the findings and 
the impugned judgment and order of the State Commission so as 
to hold the doctor of the PGI negligent and to award compensation. 
20.	 Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 of the NCDRC 
is hereby set aside and that of the State Commission is restored. 
Since the complainants have failed to prove any negligence on part 
of the doctor or the PGI, they are not entitled to any compensation 
as such, no question arises for its enhancement.
21.	 Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 is allowed and  Civil Appeal 
No. 5526 of 2012 is dismissed.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan