Medical Negligence Case: Supreme Court, not happy with compensation awarded to the patient by NCDRC, and enhanced it from Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 5 Lakhs

While hearing the Jyoti Devi vs. Suket Hospital & Ors. case, the Supreme Court (SC) of India observed that a medical negligence victim was not compensated fairly; therefore, it enhanced the compensation amount to be paid to the patient (victim) from Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 5 Lakhs. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar further said that it failed to understand the reasoning of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in this regard. It said, “The 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.” The bench added, “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, is something we fail to comprehend. Compensation by its very nature, has to be just. 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’.” 

The SC stated “In regard to the application of the Eggshell-Skull Rule, we may observe that the impugned judgment is silent as to how this rule applies to the present case. Nowhere is 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.” After hearing the matter, the bench set aside the awards of the NCDRC as well as the State Commission and restored the Award as passed by the District Forum. This means the respondents (hospital) have to pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the appellant (Jyoti Devi) for being medically negligent and providing services deficient in nature. It added, “The sum of Rs.5 lakhs shall 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.” Along with this, the SC bench imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- in terms of the cost of litigation.

The case was related to medical negligence and enhancement of compensation. Jyoti Devi was admitted to Suket Hospital, Sundernagar, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, and had her appendicitis removed. Post-surgery, she was discharged but she suffered continuous pains near the surgical site, as such she was admitted again but was discharged the next day with the assurance that she would suffer no further pain. Since there was no end to her suffering, she 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 further surgery had to be performed for its removal. A consumer complaint was lodged by the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 19,80,000. The District Forum directed the Hospital (respondent) to award the patient Rs. 5 Lakh compensation. On appeal preferred by the Hospital before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Hospital was held liable to compensate the appellant for the physical pain, mental agony, and expenses incurred by her, to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000. 

In the Revision Petition arising out of the order of the State Commission, the NCDRC observed that the post-operative care provided by the Hospital was casual and fell short of the standard of medical care. It added, “They had failed to investigate the non-healing surgical wound thereby constituting a deficiency in service.” The NCDRC held that the egg-skull rule was applied to hold an individual liable for all consequences of their act; therefore, the compensation awarded by the State Commission was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant (Jyoti Devi) approached the Supreme Court. After hearing the contentions, the SC enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 5 Lakhs.