{"id":5031,"date":"2025-03-08T23:29:16","date_gmt":"2025-03-08T17:59:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=5031"},"modified":"2025-04-18T15:19:30","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T09:49:30","slug":"jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari 2021(Case Summary)\u200b"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"5031\" class=\"elementor elementor-5031\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari 2021(Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-a-large-scre_4F8_IjRhRpe7abNwnwfUXA_vQzrlqO8RxyZyzSmD1gLQg.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-5096\" alt=\"Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-a-large-scre_4F8_IjRhRpe7abNwnwfUXA_vQzrlqO8RxyZyzSmD1gLQg.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-a-large-scre_4F8_IjRhRpe7abNwnwfUXA_vQzrlqO8RxyZyzSmD1gLQg-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-a-large-scre_4F8_IjRhRpe7abNwnwfUXA_vQzrlqO8RxyZyzSmD1gLQg-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-a-large-scre_4F8_IjRhRpe7abNwnwfUXA_vQzrlqO8RxyZyzSmD1gLQg-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-courtroom-with-a-large-scre_4F8_IjRhRpe7abNwnwfUXA_vQzrlqO8RxyZyzSmD1gLQg-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This case is significant in determining who qualifies as a consumer and beneficiary under consumer protection laws, particularly in medical negligence claims. The case raised the fundamental question of whether a brother-in-law, acting as the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, can file a consumer complaint for medical negligence regarding his sister-in-law\u2019s treatment, or whether only the patient or their legal representative can do so.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary\/#Facts_of_Jaganarayan_Lal_v_Doctor_Smt_Girija_Tiwari\" >Facts of Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Jaganarayan_Lal_v_Doctor_Smt_Girija_Tiwari\" >Judgment of Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/jaganarayan-lal-v-doctor-smt-girija-tiwari-2021case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Jaganarayan_Lal_v_Doctor_Smt_Girija_Tiwari\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Kiran Srivastava, who was four months pregnant, sought treatment from Dr. Girija Tiwari (The Respondent) on December 22, 2001.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Jaganarayan Lal (The Appellant) filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Dr. Girija Tiwari.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Jaganarayan Lal argued that he was the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and was responsible for the welfare of all family members, including his sister-in-law.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He claimed that he had availed medical services on her behalf and therefore, had the legal standing to file the complaint.\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, Jaganarayan Lal filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the appellant, Jaganarayan Lal, had the legal standing (locus standi) to file a consumer complaint regarding alleged medical negligence towards his sister-in-law?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether a brother-in-law of a patient can be considered a \u201cconsumer\u201d or \u201cbeneficiary\u201d under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the concept of a Joint Hindu Family extends to availing medical services for a pregnant sister-in-law?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint filed by Jaganarayan Lal, ruling that he did not qualify as a \u201cconsumer\u201d under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum found that the complainant was not the patient (Kiran Srivastava) who received the medical treatment, nor did he hire or pay for the medical services. The Forum rejected the appellant\u2019s argument that, as the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, he had the right to file a consumer complaint on behalf of his sister-in-law. It ruled that the concept of a Joint Hindu Family does not extend to medical treatment decisions for in-laws\u200b.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upheld the District Commission\u2019s order, ruling that Jaganarayan Lal was not a \u201cconsumer\u201d as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A similar stand was taken by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Jaganarayan_Lal_v_Doctor_Smt_Girija_Tiwari\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of <\/b><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court analyzed Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines who can file a consumer complaint. The Court also examined Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines a \u201cconsumer\u201d as someone who hires or avails a service for consideration.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court held that Jaganarayan Lal was neither a direct consumer nor a beneficiary under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Jaganarayan Lal, as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, had the right to file the complaint. The Hindu law concept of Karta applies mainly to financial and property matters and does not extend to filing consumer complaints for medical services availed by an in-law. Since Jaganarayan Lal had not personally paid for the medical treatment, nor was he a legal heir or representative of the patient, his complaint was found to be non-maintainable.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a brother-in-law cannot file a consumer complaint for medical negligence against a doctor on behalf of his sister-in-law. The concept of a Joint Hindu Family does not extend to availing medical services for an in-law. Only the patient, their legal heir, or a person who directly availed the service can file such a complaint.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Read the Judgment Below<\/strong><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ad13ebd elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"ad13ebd\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Jaganarayan-Lal-v.-Doctor-Smt.-Girija-Tiwari-2021-Fawyerz-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This case is significant in determining who qualifies as a consumer and beneficiary under consumer protection laws, particularly in medical negligence claims. The case raised the fundamental question of whether a brother-in-law, acting as the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5096,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[121,114,108,123,124,12],"class_list":["post-5031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-family-law-ii","tag-hindu-joint-family","tag-hindu-succession-act-1956","tag-karta","tag-member","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5031"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5576,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5031\/revisions\/5576"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5096"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}