Medical Board’s Disability Assessment Cannot Be Ignored Without Justification – Compensation Enhanced for Comatose Accident Victim: Supreme Court

"Once an Expert Body Has Certified 100% Disability, It Cannot Be Arbitrarily Reduced" – Supreme Court Restores Full Disability and Increases Compensation. In a significant ruling  Supreme Court of India in Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. restored the disability assessment to 100% for a motor accident victim in a comatose state and enhanced compensation from ₹19.39 lakh to ₹48.70 lakh.

Holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court had erroneously reduced the disability from 100% to 50% despite clear findings of the Medical Board, the Court ruled: "The Tribunal had no authority to disregard the Medical Board’s assessment of 100% permanent disability without re-evaluation by another expert body. Once the Medical Board certifies total impairment, its opinion cannot be substituted by mere conjecture."

Applying its ruling in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, the Supreme Court also granted 25% additional compensation towards future prospects, awarded ₹7,80,000/- for attendant charges, and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering by ₹6,00,000/-, recognizing the victim’s complete dependence on caregivers.

The final compensation was set at ₹48,70,000/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition.

The case arose from a motor accident on March 23, 2014, when the appellant, Prakash Chand Sharma, was riding his motorcycle in Alwar, Rajasthan. A Maruti Omni, driven rashly and on the wrong side, collided with his vehicle, resulting in severe head injuries and permanent disability.

An FIR (No. 81/14) was registered at Tehla Police Station, and the appellant was hospitalized at Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. Though he survived, he remained in a comatose state, suffering total loss of speech, motor function, and intellectual abilities.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar, awarded ₹16,29,465/-, assessing disability at 50% despite the Medical Board’s certificate confirming 100% permanent impairment. The Rajasthan High Court, in appeal, partially enhanced the compensation to ₹19,39,418/-, but upheld the 50% disability assessment, citing lack of direct medical testimony.

Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the Medical Board’s report had been wrongly disregarded and that future prospects, attendant charges, and pain and suffering were grossly undercompensated.

"Tribunal Cannot Disregard Medical Experts Without Re-Evaluation – Disability Restored to 100%"

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Tribunal and the High Court for ignoring the findings of the Medical Board, which had certified 100% permanent disability. The Board’s report stated:

"The patient has no speech and his intellectual functions are completely impaired. He cannot stand or walk. He is catheterized and dependent on others for all daily activities. Total permanent physical impairment: 100%."

The Tribunal, however, questioned the competence of the Medical Board and arbitrarily reduced disability to 50% without referring the case for a fresh assessment. The Supreme Court held that this approach was legally unsustainable, stating:

"If the Tribunal had doubts about the Medical Board’s report, it should have sought a re-evaluation. It could not have substituted its own assessment without expert medical opinion. The comatose state of the appellant is undisputed, and a 100% disability assessment is justified."

Relying on Union of India v. Talwinder Singh and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Court restored the disability assessment to 100% and directed compensation to be calculated accordingly.

"A Comatose Victim’s Future Earnings Cannot Be Arbitrarily Reduced – 25% Future Prospects Granted"

The appellant argued that no compensation had been awarded for future prospects, despite clear precedent that future earnings must be considered, even in cases of total disability.

The Supreme Court applied its ruling in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, where future prospects were considered even for a permanently disabled individual, and held: "A person in a comatose state, completely dependent on others, is entitled to compensation for future earnings. A 25% enhancement is appropriate in light of existing jurisprudence."

Accordingly, 25% future prospects were granted on full disability computation, significantly increasing the compensation amount.

"A Patient in a Coma Requires Round-the-Clock Care – Attendant Charges Cannot Be Denied"

The appellant also challenged the denial of compensation for caregiver expenses, arguing that he required continuous medical assistance. The Supreme Court noted:

"The appellant is completely dependent on others for daily activities. Denying attendant charges is unjustifiable. Compensation must reflect the real cost of lifelong medical assistance."

Following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, the Court awarded ₹7,80,000/- for attendant charges, calculated at ₹5,000 per month for 13 years (expected life span under the applicable multiplier rule).

"Mental and Physical Agony Cannot Be Ignored – Compensation Enhanced for Pain and Suffering"

The Tribunal had awarded only ₹2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court found this grossly inadequate, particularly given the irreversible nature of the injuries.

Referring to K.S. Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, the Court held: "A person who has lost speech, mobility, and cognitive abilities cannot be compensated with a nominal sum for pain and suffering. The quantum must reflect the gravity of the loss."

The Court enhanced compensation under this head to ₹6,00,000/-, citing the extreme nature of physical and mental agony suffered by the appellant.

After recomputing all heads of compensation, the Supreme Court enhanced the total amount to ₹48,70,000/-, nearly three times the amount awarded by the High Court.

The Court directed: "The final compensation payable to the appellant is ₹48,70,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be paid within two months."

The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

This ruling reinforces the principle that a Medical Board’s disability assessment cannot be disregarded without justification and that courts must ensure fair compensation for severely disabled accident victims.

By restoring 100% disability assessment, granting future prospects, awarding attendant charges, and enhancing pain and suffering compensation, the Supreme Court has set a strong precedent for fair and realistic compensation in motor accident claims.

As the Court succinctly stated: "When an individual is left completely dependent on caregivers for survival, compensation must reflect not only financial loss but also human suffering. Any arbitrary reduction in disability assessment or compensation is a denial of justice."

This judgment ensures that motor accident victims with severe disabilities receive the full and fair compensation they deserve under the law.

Date of Decision: February 10, 2025