The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from
Deals & Matter
P.S. Maini Vs Avtar Singh
Supreme Court
Medical Negligence
P.S. Maini Vs Avtar Singh
- O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
- 29 November 2022
- Delhi High Court
Issue
The matter concerns an appeal against a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 18 March 2020. The NCDRC had enhanced the compensation awarded to the complainant (Respondent No. 2) in a medical negligence case. The original compensation of ₹10 lakhs awarded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was increased by ₹1 lakh by the NCDRC. The appellant, Dr. P.S. Maini, challenged this enhancement in the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Argument (P.S. Maini)
- Challenge to NCDRC’s Enhancement:
Dr. P.S. Maini, a medical professional, challenged the NCDRC’s decision that increased the compensation to the complainant by ₹1,00,000. He contended that there was no sufficient ground for enhancement beyond what was already awarded by the State Commission.
- Denial of Medical Negligence:
Through his counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh, the appellant denied any liability for medical negligence. He maintained that no negligence occurred during the treatment of the complainant.
- Settlement Proposal Without Admission:
In an attempt to settle the matter amicably, the appellant offered to pay ₹11,00,000 as a humanitarian gesture, not as an admission of guilt or acknowledgment of negligence. This offer was extended considering the physical condition of the complainant, who was polio-affected.
- Right to Withdraw Deposited Amount:
The appellant also requested that upon settlement and payment of the agreed amount, he be allowed to withdraw the amount earlier deposited with the NCDRC along with any accrued interest.
Respondent’s Argument (Avtar Singh & Anr.)
- Acceptance of Humanitarian Settlement:
The respondents, represented by Mr. Santosh Kumar, accepted the appellant’s proposal of ₹11,00,000. They agreed to forego the allegations of medical negligence and supported setting aside the impugned NCDRC judgment in view of the settlement.
- Non-Pressing of Negligence Allegations:
The respondents clearly stated that they would not pursue the claim of medical negligence if the humanitarian compensation was paid as proposed.
- Request for Final Settlement:
On the basis of the offer and mutual consent, the respondents urged the Court to resolve the matter amicably and bring an end to the prolonged litigation.
Deals & Matter Corner
Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed
Articles & Publications
Varun Singh, founding partner at Foresight Law
The Division Bench of the Delhi High
Blogs
The digital transformation of healthcare in India
Public procurement plays a vital role in
Court's Findings and Observations
- Encouragement of Amicable Resolution:
The Court noted that both parties had engaged in discussions to resolve the matter amicably, with a settlement reached wherein the appellant agreed to pay ₹11 lakhs to the complainant without admitting negligence.
- Consideration of the Complainant’s Condition:
The Court observed that the appellant’s offer was extended on humanitarian grounds, particularly considering the physical disability of the complainant due to polio.
- Withdrawal of Allegations:
Since the respondents had formally agreed not to press the allegations of medical negligence, and the appellant was willing to pay the agreed compensation, the Court recognized that there was no further issue left for adjudication.
- Finality of Dispute:
The Court emphasized that once the settlement amount was paid and encashed, the matter should be treated as resolved in full. The judgment of the NCDRC was to be set aside accordingly.
Court's Decision
- Appeal Allowed:
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC order dated 18 March 2020, which had enhanced the compensation.
- Settlement Accepted:
The Court recorded the settlement as agreed by the parties and accepted the offer made by the appellant to pay ₹11,00,000 to the second respondent.
- Payment Directions:
The Court directed that a cheque for ₹11,00,000 in the name of the second respondent be handed over by the appellant for onward transmission to the respondent’s counsel within two days.
- Right to Reclaim Deposited Funds:
After the cheque is encashed, the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited with the NCDRC along with any accrued interest.
- Disposal of Petitions and Applications:
The Court disposed of both civil appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 3158 and 3159 of 2020) along with all pending applications.
- Bench Constitution:
The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising:
- Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
- Justice Indu Malhotra
- Justice K.M. Joseph
Legal Significance
Promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The case reflects the Court’s preference for amicable settlements, especially in sensitive matters like medical disputes, where litigation can be prolonged and adversarial.
Judicial Efficiency
By recording a voluntary settlement, the Court saved judicial time and encouraged litigants to resolve matters outside court when possible.
No Finding on Merits
Importantly, the judgment does not make any ruling on whether medical negligence occurred. It solely records a consensual resolution, preserving the professional reputation of the appellant.
Deals and Matter
Sapphire Media Services vs Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Innovation
The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from invoking ₹1.71 crore bank guarantees under a void concession agreement, citing fraud and irretrievable injustice.
Learn More →Inheritance Fight Over Mrs. Satula Devi’s Legacy
Advisory
Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed will, citing denial of maintenance and questioning inheritance rights in Dr. Mahendra Prasad’s ₹40,000-crore estate.
Learn More →
Sudhir Kumar Lad vs CBI Issue SC Grants Bail After Prolonged Custody
Innovation
The Supreme Court held that prolonged custody, without any substantial progress in trial proceedings, amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Learn More →
Vinod Dua vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. case
Innovation
The Supreme Court held dissent is not defamation, critique is not sedition, and quashed the FIR against Vinod Dua, affirming free speech as democracy’s cornerstone.
Learn More →
Kanchana Rai Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Ors.
Advisory
The Delhi High Court, citing medical incapacity and asset risk, appointed an interim guardian to manage Mr. DMP’s ₹3,000-crore estate pending the guardianship dispute.
Learn More →
P.S. Maini Vs Avtar Singh
Regulatory
Supreme Court sets aside NCDRC order as parties settle medical negligence dispute through ₹11 lakh humanitarian payment without admission of negligence.
Learn More →
Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Paralympic Committee of India
Advisory
The Delhi High Court dismissed Naresh Kumar Sharma’s plea but asked the Sports Ministry to review his discrimination claims against PCI’s selection process.
Learn More →
Raman Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India
Advisory
Supreme Court regularizes services of long-serving Group ‘D’ employees, holding selective denial arbitrary and iolative of Article 14.
Learn More →
Alok Kumar vs State of Bihar
Advisory
Alok Kumar vs State of Bihar SC balances liberty with victim restitution through ₹13.94 Cr deposit condition.
Learn More →
Aarav Jain & Ors. vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors.
Advisory
Court holds merit cannot be sacrificed for technical lapses; disqualification for delayed submission of documents set aside.
Learn More →
Vikas Balaguer Shammi vs. State
Advisory
Court weighs 7 years of custody, contradictory testimonies, and co-accused parity against gravity of murder charge in hanghai-30 bar brawl case.
Learn More →
Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal (Supreme Court, 2024)
Advisory
Delhi Development Authority vs Tejpal Supreme Court rules that possession taken through memo and deposited compensation prevent lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Learn More →