For Suffering, No Part of Which Was the Claimant-Appellant’s Own Fault, She Has Been Awarded a Sum Which Can, At Best, Be Described as ‘Paltry: Supreme Court on Medical Negligence Compensation
Supreme Court of India, in a recent landmark judgment, emphasized the importance of adequate compensation in cases of medical negligence, particularly under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court reinstated a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 originally awarded by the District Forum to Jyoti Devi, who suffered prolonged pain due to a surgical needle left in her abdomen post-appendectomy.
Facts and Issues
Jyoti Devi underwent appendectomy surgery at Suket Hospital, where Dr. Anil Chauhan left a 2.5 cm surgical needle in her abdomen. This oversight led to years of suffering for Devi, culminating in another surgery at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Chandigarh, to remove the needle. Initially awarded Rs. 5,00,000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the compensation was reduced by the State Commission and later slightly increased by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to Rs. 2,00,000. Devi appealed to the Supreme Court seeking restoration of the original compensation.
Detailed Court Assessment
Medical Negligence and Duty of Care: The Court underscored the negligence of Suket Hospital and Dr. Chauhan, affirming that the post-operative complications and retained needle clearly indicated a breach of duty care, which resulted in significant harm to Devi.
Quantum of Compensation: The Supreme Court criticized the lower commissions for reducing the compensation and highlighted the need to strike a balance between the victim’s demands and the respondents’ liabilities. The Court pointed out the inadequacy of Rs. 1,00,000 in addressing the actual suffering and costs incurred by Devi.
Eggshell Skull Rule: The application of this rule by the NCDRC was scrutinized, with the Supreme Court noting the absence of evidence for any pre-existing condition in Devi that would warrant its application. The Court stated that the rule was misapplied, as there was no indication that Devi had any particular vulnerability that exacerbated her condition beyond the normal expected consequences of such medical negligence.
Decision of the Court The Supreme Court set aside the awards of the lower commissions and restored the original award of Rs. 5,00,000 with an additional 9% interest from the date of the original award by the District Forum, as well as Rs. 50,000 in litigation costs. The Court mandated that the compensation be paid promptly within four weeks to address the deficiencies in service and the unwarranted suffering caused to Devi.
Date of Decision: April 23, 2024
Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital & Ors.
