Judgements

The matter concerned allegations of medical negligence in the treatment of Late Shri Gyan Mishra at Sahara India Medical Institute, including issues relating to the management of his kidney condition, prescription of medication and monitoring of his medical condition. The NCDRC examined the treatment records, medical literature and the applicable medical guidelines and recorded findings of negligence against two treating doctors, holding the hospital vicariously liable. The NCDRC awarded an aggregate compensation of ₹30 lakh, along with litigation costs of ₹25,000.

The matter was subsequently considered by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 2020, filed by Sahara India Medical Institute Limited & Ors. against Gyan Mishra (deceased) through legal heirs & Anr. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by order dated 17 May 2022.

The Tribunal held that the promoter could not claim further extension merely because the Occupancy Certificate was delayed after completion of the project. It found that the force majeure protection could not be extended beyond the actual period of the COVID-19 disruption. The Tribunal ultimately found no merit in the appeals and directed payment of delay interest at MCLR + 1% for the applicable delayed period.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was an allottee and not merely an investor. It found that the cancellation of the unit and its subsequent transfer to a third party at an increased price amounted to an unfair and fraudulent practice. The Tribunal set aside the Regulatory Authority's orders and directed the promoter to hand over possession of the respective units after obtaining the OC/CC and executing the conveyance deeds. It also directed the Regulatory Authority to consider appropriate action for the promoter's violations under RERA and awarded litigation costs of ₹15,000.

UP RERA held that the complainants were entitled to possession and delay interest at MCLR+1%. The promoter was directed to complete the required facilities and hand over the units with the OC/CC and execute the necessary registration. Interest was directed from the applicable delayed-period dates until the later of OC/CC or offer of possession, subject to exclusion of the applicable force majeure period.

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the NCDRC's findings and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the findings of negligence and compensation awarded against the concerned doctors and hospital. The Court also directed that the amount already deposited pursuant to its earlier order be paid to the original complainant.

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings. The Court directed the appropriate committee of the National Medical Commission to re-hear the matter and pass appropriate orders, while leaving the merits and contentions of all parties open.

The Allahabad High Court examined the powers of the RERA Appellate Tribunal in determining delay interest and dealing with the statutory pre-deposit made by a promoter for maintaining an appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's authority to determine the entitlement to interest on the basis of the material before it and considered the scope of its appellate and revisional jurisdiction under RERA. The connected appeals were ultimately dismissed.