| Headnote |
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Medical negligence – Deficiency in service – Determination of quantum of compensation – Just compensation – Eggshell skull rule – Inapplicability: Held: The factum of negligence on the part of the respondent Hospital as well as respondent No.2 was not doubted across fora – Although the State Commission differed with the District Forum on the presence of the needle, the NCDRC found the medical record to testify the presence of a needle in the abdomen and also found that the respondent Hospital was found wanting in terms of postoperative care – In determining compensation in cases of medical negligence, a balance has to be struck between the demands of the person claiming compensation, as also the interests of those being made liable to pay – What qualifies as just compensation has to be considered in the facts of each case – Despite having made observations regarding the service rendered by the Hospital being deficient and the continuous pain and suffering on the part of the appellant, the compensation granted was paltry and unjustified – Further, eggshell skull rule holds the injurer liable for damages that exceed the amount that would normally be expected to occur – It is a common law doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff’s unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant’s negligent or intentional tort – The persons to whose cases this rule can be applied, are persons who have pre-existing conditions – Therefore, for this rule to be appropriately invoked and applied, the person in whose case an adjudicatory authority applies must have a pre-existing condition falling into either of the four categories – Impugned judgment is silent as to how the Eggshell Skull Rule rule applied to the present case – Nowhere it mentioned as to what criteria had been examined, and then, upon analysis, found to be met by the 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 – Awards of the NCDRC and State Commission set aside while that of the District Forum restored – Rs.5 lakhs with 9% simple interest to be paid by the respondents to the appellant for being medically negligent and providing services deficient in nature – Cost of litigation @ Rs.50,000/- also imposed. [Paras 11, 12.3.1, 12.3.3, 12.4.1, 16-18] Doctrine – Common law doctrine – Rule of tort – Eggshell skull rule – Application of the rule – Jurisprudence:Held: Jurisprudence of the application of this rule, as developed (in countries other than India) has fit into four categories – First, when a latent condition of the plaintiff has been unearthed – Second, when the negligence on the part of the wrongdoer re-activates a plaintiff’s pre-existing condition that had subsided due to treatment – Third, wrongdoer’s actions aggravate known, pre-existing conditions, that have not yet received medical attention – Fourth, when the wrongdoer’s actions accelerate an inevitable disability or loss of life due to a condition possessed by the plaintiff, even when the eventuality would have occurred with time, in the absence of the wrongdoer’s actions – The persons to whose cases this rule can be applied, are persons who have pre-existing conditions– Therefore, for this rule to be appropriately invoked and applied, the person in whose case an adjudicatory authority applies must have a pre-existing condition falling into either of the four categories. [Para 12.4.3] Compensation – Just compensation:Held: The idea of compensation is based on restitutio in integrum, which means, make good the loss suffered, so far as money is able to do so, or, in other words, take the receiver of such compensation, back to a position, as if the loss/injury suffered by them hadn’t occurred – Compensation doesn’t acquire the quality of being just simply because the Tribunal awarding it believes it to be so – For it to be so, it must be adequate; fair; and equitable, in the facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 12.3.2] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Scope of – Discussed. [Para 12.1.1] |
