In a significant order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission for heavily relying on downloaded material from Google to support its reasoning on alleged medical negligence.

The NCDRC observed that neither the parties nor the State Commission were aware of such material being utilized for deciding the issue, nor was it supplied by either party.

The case (First Appeal No. 326 of 2024) involves an appeal filed by Vivekanand Polyclinic and Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr. Javed Ahmed against an order dated 21/03/2024 passed by the State Commission in Complaint No. CC/238/2015. The appellants were represented by Mr. Pranav Upadhyay, Mr. Rishabh Khare, and Mr. Navneeth R., Advocates.

The respondents in the case are Mahesh Chandra Rastogi, Smt. Manju Rastogi, Dr. Pradeep Gupta, Dr. Jigyasu Singh, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Background of the Case

According to reports, Mahesh Chandra Rastogi’s husband and children were admitted to the Trauma Centre (Vivekanand Polyclinic and Institute of Medical Sciences) on the advice and reference made by the Trauma Centre itself. However, the treatment allegedly resulted in the death of Rastogi’s husband due to medical negligence.

The State Commission had awarded a compensation of more than one crore rupees against Vivekanand Multi-specialty Hospital, Lucknow, for the death caused by medical negligence.

Key Observations of the NCDRC

In its order dated 27th May 2024, a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi, President of the NCDRC, made the following key observations:

1. Reliance on Google Downloads: The NCDRC observed that the State Commission had heavily relied on downloaded material from Google to support its reasoning on downloaded material from Google to support its reasoning on alleged medical negligence. The court noted,

“Neither the appellant nor the contesting parties were aware of such material proposed to be utilized for the purpose of deciding the issue nor had the said material been supplied on behalf of either of the parties.”

2. Procedural Impropriety: The NCDRC questioned the procedure of entertaining material from Google for deciding the case, stating, “This procedure of entertaining material from the Google does not appear to be the appropriate procedure for deciding the case.”

3. Prima Facie Case: The NCDRC acknowledged that the grounds raised in the appeal deserve to be considered, stating, “Prima facie the grounds raised in the appeal deserve to be considered.”

Court’s Decision

The NCDRC admitted the appeal and issued a notice returnable at an early date, listing the matter for further hearing on 29.10.2024.

Additionally, the court directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the State Commission within four weeks, which shall be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit of a nationalized bank. The court ordered that further execution proceedings shall remain stayed, subject to the said deposit.

Source: https://lawtrend.in/ncdrc-pulls-up-state-commission-for-relying-on-google-downloads-in-medical-negligence-case/