Case Law Details
Jyoti Devi Vs Suket Hospital & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: Compensation by its very nature, had to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she had been awarded a sum which could, at best, be described as ‘paltry’. In regard to the application of the Eggshell-Skull Rule, the impugned judgment was silent as to how this rule applied to the present case. It was deemed fit to set aside the Awards of the NCDRC as also the State Commission and restore the Award as passed by the District Forum, meaning thereby that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs ought to be paid expeditiously by the respondents to the appellant for being medically negligent and providing services deficient in nature.
Held: The claimant – appellant eventually landed up for treatment at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Chandigarh. Upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm foreign body (needle) “is present below the anterior abdominal wall in the preveside region just medial to previous abdominal scar (Appendectomy)” for which a further surgery had to be performed for its removal. Alleging negligence on the part of the respondent – Suket Hospital, a claim was brought for the “huge pain and spent money on treatment” totalling to Rs.19,80,000/-. The egg-skull rule was applied to hold an individual liable for all consequences of their act. The compensation awarded by the State Commission was enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. It was held that the State Commission had recognized that appellant herein had not been treated “with the care expected at a medical clinic”; she had been suffering from persistent pain right from 2005 until December, 2008; and that post-surgical care was deficient which undoubtedly constituted a deficiency in service and yet found it appropriate to reduce the compensation to a mere Rs.1 lakh. This clearly was not in line with the balance of interests required to be borne in mind while determining compensation. NCDRC observed that the claimant-appellant’s treatment at the respondent-Hospital was ‘casual’; that the excuse of having sought treatment at other hospitals was not available to the respondents and that she had suffered pain for more than 5 years apart from the case having been dragged on for more than a decade, and yet lumpsum compensation was only Rs.2 lakhs. How could such compensation be justified, after observations having been made regarding the service rendered by the Hospital, being deficient, and the continuous pain and suffering on the part of the claimant-appellant, was something failed to comprehend. Compensation by its very nature, had to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she had been awarded a sum which could, at best, be described as ‘paltry’. In regard to the application of the Eggshell-Skull Rule, the impugned judgment was silent as to how this rule applied to the present case. Nowhere was it mentioned, as to what criteria had been examined, and then, upon analysis, found to be met by the claimant-appellant for it to be termed that she had an eggshell skull, or for that matter, what sort of pre-existing condition was she afflicted by, making her more susceptible to such a reaction brought on because of surgery for appendicitis. If the rule as exposited by the NCDRC, even then it stood to reason that the record ought to have been speaking of a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition, because of which the victim might have suffered ‘unusual damage’. However, none of the orders – be it District, State Commission or the NCDRC refer to any such condition. Considering the discussion as aforesaid, it was deemed fit to set aside the Awards of the NCDRC as also the State Commission and restore the Award as passed by the District Forum, meaning thereby that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs ought to be paid expeditiously by the respondents to the appellant for being medically negligent and providing services deficient in nature. The sum of Rs.5 lakhs should be accompanied by interest simple in nature @ 9% from the date of the award passed by the District Forum. The same be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Additionally, a cost of Rs.50,000/- be paid in terms of the cost of litigation. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
