Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Medical negligence – Compensation – Appellant’s case was that she was admitted in respondent-Hospital on account of abdomen pain and menstrual problem where she was examined by respondent no.2 and diagnosed with having fibroids and endometrial hyperplasia and had to undergo minor operation – For the said purpose, respondent no.3-para-medico administered intravenous injection of Phenergan directly by a syringe in her right arm – Appellant continuously suffered excruciating pain during the entire surgical procedure and despite bringing the fact to the knowledge of respondents-doctors during and after the procedure, no measures were taken to reduce the discomfort suffered by her – Due to the complications that arose in regard to arm of the appellant which could not be handled by the team of doctors at respondent-Hospital, she was shifted to another hospital in a taxi arranged by her husband where she was diagnosed with acute arterial occlusion with ischemia of limb caused by intra arterial injection which ultimately resulted in amputation of her right arm above the elbow – Claim petition by appellant – State Commission rejected the complaint but directed the respondent to make ex gratia payment of Rs.2,93,526/- to the appellant – National Commission held that it was a clear case of medical negligence and awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakh – Appeal for enhancement of compensation amount – Held: Appellant was 45 years of age when her right arm was amputated – She belonged to a very poor and rural background and was covered under Integrated Rural Development Programme – National Commission, even after finding it to be a case of medical negligence quantified the amount of compensation only at Rs. 2,00,000/- – When the appellant is shown to be a poor lady from rural background, her contribution in ensuring the family meeting both ends also deserved due consideration – With her disablement and reduced contribution, the amount of compensation ought to be of such level as to provide relief in reasonable monetary terms to the appellant and to her family – Appellant is allowed Rs. 10,00,000/towards compensation, over and above the amount awarded by the State Commission and the National Commission. Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Medical negligence – Compensation – Determining factors – Ordinarily, the general damages towards pain and suffering as also loss of amenities of life deserve to be considered uniformly for the human beings and the award of compensation cannot go restrictive when the victim is coming from a poor and rural background; rather, in a given case like that of the appellant, such a background of the victim may guide the adjudicatory process towards reasonably higher amount of compensation after having regard to all the attending circumstances.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The State Commission though recorded that with the onset of gangrene, amputation of the right arm of the appellant was carried out with a view to save her life but dismissed the complaint on rather untenable grounds like that the surgery would not have been successful if sedation was not complete and proper; and that the appellant was referred to another hospital for more effective treatment after all the efforts at the respondent hospital were exhausted. In appeal, the National Commission minutely examined the evidence on record and concluded on the medical negligence of respondents for several counts such as: not providing or making arrangements for an ambulance for proper shifting of the appellant; not attending on the appellant at the first instance on her complaint about unbearable pain and the delay having aggravated the ischemic process; and though cannula was not used as it was a one-time prick for the procedure, yet it should have been used to prevent mishaps. There is no infirmity in the findings of the National Commission, in so far the issue of medical negligence is concerned. However, after having recorded clear findings on medical negligence and after taking note of the directions of the State Commission regarding ex gratia payment, the National Commission considered it proper to award to the appellant an additional compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The requirement in such cases of disablement due to medical negligence is of awarding just and reasonable compensation to the victim, while keeping in view the pecuniary damages as also the non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. [Paras 14, 16] [953-C-G; 955-A]
Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prashanth S. Dhananka and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 1 : [2009] 9 SCR
313 ; Alfred Benddict v. Manipal Hospital: (2015) 11 SCC 423 – relied on
2. Appellant was 45 years of age when she suffered the medical negligence and consequences thereof, leading to amputation of her right arm. She came from a very poor and rural background and is covered under Integrated Rural Development Programme. The National Commission, even after appreciating the troubles and trauma as also disablement and disadvantage suffered by the appellant, had been too restrictive in award of compensation. [Paras 16.1, 16.2][955-B-E]
3. Granting of reasonably higher amount of compensation in the present case appears necessary to serve dual purposes: one, to provide some succour and support to the appellant against the hardship and disadvantage due to amputation of right arm; and second, to send the message to the professionals that their responsiveness and diligence has to be equi-balanced for all their consumers and all the human beings deserve to be treated with equal respect and sensitivity. When the appellant was writhing in pain, she was not immediately attended at and was snubbed with the retort that ‘the people from hilly areas make unnecessary noise’. Such remarks, obviously, added insult to the injury and were least expected of the professionals on public duties. Apart from that, when the appellant is shown to be a poor lady from rural background, her contribution in ensuring the family meeting both ends also deserves due consideration. With her disablement and reduced contribution, the amount of compensation ought to be of such level as to provide relief in reasonable monetary terms to the appellant and to her family. The appellant deserves to be allowed further an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation, over and above the amount awarded by the State Commission and the National Commission. The respondents shall make the requisite payment within 3 months from today failing which, the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint before the State Commission. [Paras 16.3-18][955-F-H; 956-A-E] Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prashanth S. Dhananka and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 1 : [2009] 9 SCR
313 ; Alfred Benddict v. Manipal Hospital (2015) 11 SCC 423 – relied on
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.