| Headnote |
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:Complaint - Medical negligence - Contributorynegligence - Death of an US f)ased patient in hospital in India- National Commission holding the hospital and doctors liablefor medical negligence as also the husband of deceasedliable for contributory negligence and, as such, deducting 10%towards contributory negligence from compensation, awardingRs. 1,55,58,750 to claimant - Held: Appellant-Hospital isvicariously liable for its doctors and is, therefore, directed topay total amount of compensation amounting toRs. 6, 08, 00, 5501-, under various heads as detailed injudgment, after deducting Rs.25 lakhs payable by appellants-doctors - National Commission erred in holding that claimanthad contributed to negligence of appellant-doctors andHospital which resulted in death of his wife when SupremeCourt had clearly absolved the claimant of such liability andremanded the matter back to National Commission only fordetermining the quantum of compensation - Finding ofNational Commission in this regard is set aside and it is re-emphasized that claimant did not contribute to negligence ofappellants-doctors and Hospital which resulted in death of hiswife - Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - r. ·r4(c).Enhancement of compensation by complainantsubsequent to filing of claim petition - Claimant making additional claims by way of affidavit before NationalCommission - Held: Claim for enhancement of compensationby claimant is justified - Claimant is entitled for enhancedcompensation under certain items in additional claimpreferred before National Commission - Further, claim ofclaimant having remained pending for 15 years, value ofmoney has devalued to a great extent - Therefore, inflationshould be considered while deciding the quantum ofcompensation - It is wholly untenable in law for the 'Hospitaland the doctors to plead that without there being anamendment to the claim petition, the claimant is not entitledto seek the additional claims by way of affidavit, and that theclaim is ~arred by limitation -- Supreme Court has got thepower under Art. 136 of the Constitution and the duty to awardjust and reasonable compensation to do complete justice tothe affected claimant - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136. Just and fair compensation - Held: Status, futureprospects and educational qualification of deceased must bejudged for deciding adequate, just and fair compensation -Principle of just and reasonable compensation is based on E'restitutio in integrum', i.e., claimant must receive the sum ofmoney which would put him in the same position as he wouldhave been if he had not sustained the wrong - Court is dutybound and entitled to award just compensation' irrespectiveof the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised byclaimant or not.Future prospects of income - Held, 'Future loss. ofincome' is different from 'future prospects of income' in termsof potential of victim - Jn awarding just and reasonablecompensation, future prospects of deceased must have beenreasonably judged by the National Commission.Medical negligence - Compensation - Multiplier methodHeld: Just, fair and reasonable compensation has to be determined on the basis of the income of aeceased at thetime of death of the victim and other related claims onaccount of the death - Therefore, the plea to apply tilemultiplier method in determination of compensation, does notinspire confidence.BMedical negligence - Death of patient - Compensationtowards loss of income of deceased - Held: Whiledetermining the income of deceased, evidence on record hasto be relied on - Further, 30% added towards future loss ofC income of deceased - 113 of total income is required to bededucted towards personal expenditure of deceased -Estimating the life expectancy of a healthy person as 70 years,compensation to be awarded by multiplying the total loss ofincome by 30.DEFMedical negligence - Death of patient - Claim byhusband under the heads loss of income for missed work,travel expenses and legal expenses - Held: Claim towardsmissed work cannot be allowed as the same has no direct .nexus with the negligence of appellant-doctors and hospital -- However, claim towards travel expenses and legal expenses,partly allowed.Other pecuniary damages - Medical negligence - Deathof patient -- Expenses incurred by claimant towards treatment,travel and hotel expenses in this regard, allowed.Non-pecuniary damages -Medical negligence - Death ofpatient -- Compensation under the head )Jain and sufferingof patient during the course of treatment', allowed - Loss ofconsortium, allowed -- However, under the head, 'emotionalG distress, pain and suffering for claimant himself', nocompensation can be awarded since this claim bears no directlink with negligence of hospital and doctors in treatingclaimant's wife. Medical negligence - Interest on compensation amount- Held: Not awarding interest by National Commission oncompensation amount from the date of filing of originalcomplaint up to the date of payment is most unreasonableand is opposed to provisions of Interest Act - Therefore, 6%interest is awarded on the compensation finally determinedfrom date of the petition till payment - Interest Act, 1978.Medical Negligence -- Liability of nursing homes,hospitals and doctors - Need of an appropriate legislation -Held: Doctors, hospitals and nursing homes and otherconnected establishments are required to be dealt with strictlyif they are found to be negligent with patients and do not taketheir responsibility seriously - Central and State Governmentsmay consider enacting laws wherever there is absence of one,for effective functioning of private hospitals and nursinghomes. |
