Skip to main content

Compensation of Rs. 20 lakh awarded in a case of death due to medical negligence

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While holding Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI), Chandigarh guilty of medical negligence, NCDRC upheld the order of Chandigarh State Commission and also enhanced the total compensation from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 20 lakh in case of death of a girl due to delay in treatment. The Commission was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of the deceased challenging the order of Chandigarh State Commission vide which the Institute was directed to pay Rs 7 lakh and Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) to pay Rs 3 lakh to them. The parents of the deceased approached NCDRC for enhancement of compensation awarded by the State Commission. PGI, Chandigarh had also filed appeal before Commission in the matter. The facts of the case are that a schoolgirl aged about 16 years, on her way from her school to residence was crushed by a CTU bus when she was attempting to board it in July 2012. She was admitted into Advance Trauma Centre (ATC) of PGI, Chandigarh. Due to medical negligence and incompetence, her leg got infected and her left lower limb was amputated in an attempt to prevent the gangrene from spreading to other parts of the body. Later as the doctors of the Institute failed to check or control the spread of gangrene, it led to untimely death of the girl. The parents had alleged that the girl died due to delay in proper treatment and negligence on the part of the doctors of the Institute. In its defense, Institute submitted that the deceased was planned for surgery at the time of admission itself, but the procedure was delayed due to heavy rush of patients in the hospital. After perusing the material on record, which included report provided by eminent doctors in the case and hearing both the parties, NCDRC held the Institute guilty for medical negligence and noted that, “It may be pertinent to note that O.P.No.1-Hospital is a prestigious medical institute. Therefore, it is expected from such institute that it should work not in a purely bureaucratic manner i.e. patient should be treated as per seniority in the queue, but it should be run in a professional manner. The medical surgeries, operations and other emergency treatments are to be administered keeping in view the nature of ailment, seriousness and other exigencies as per the best judgment of the treating doctor. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that condition of the patient was quite serious from the time she was admitted in the Hospital. Keeping in view the nature of ailment from which the patient was suffering, O.P. No.1-Hospital should not have insisted on red  tapism.  On the other hand, it is really unfortunate that due to the bureaucratic approach and red tapism adopted by O.P. No.1-Hospital, a precious life of young girl could not be saved.” While upholding the order of State Commission, NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by the Institute and increased the amount of compensation in the matter. “We deem it appropriate to award a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) to the appellants, since they have to bear with all  the trauma, mental agony, pain and sufferings, throughout their remaining life,” NCDRC noted. [Amit Sarkar v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 13, decided on 21.05.2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/06/04/compensation-of-rs-20-lakh-awarded-in-a-case-of-death-due-to-medical-negligence.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more