Supreme Court of India —"We have sympathy for the appellant, but sympathy cannot translate into a legal remedy"—highlights a key principle in judicial reasoning: decisions must be grounded in law and not in emotion. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, essentially reinforced that sympathy alone is not sufficient to establish legal liability, particularly in complex domains like medical negligence

The Supreme Court's judgment in Vinod Jain v. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 2019, decided on February 25, 2019) provides a significant interpretation of medical negligence under Indian law. The bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) decision, emphasizing that a wrong diagnosis, in itself, does not constitute medical negligence.​

Background of the Case

The appellant, Vinod Jain, alleged that his wife's death resulted from medical negligence at Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital. He cited several concerns:​

• Administration of oral antibiotics instead of intravenous ones when the IV line was non-functional.​

• Failure to re-cannulate for IV medication.​

• Premature discharge from the hospital despite her critical condition.​