Skip to main content

SC awards Rs. 10 Lakh compensation in a medical negligence case to ‘send message’ to medical practitioners

In Shoda Devi v. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla, in a case of medical negligence where a minor surgery resulted in amputating a woman’s arm, the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 10 Lakhs towards compensation, over and above the amount awarded by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 

The Court said that such granting of reasonability higher amount of compensation was necessary to serve dual purposes:
1) to provide some succour and support to the appellant against the hardship and disadvantage due to amputation of right arm; and
2) to send the message to the professionals that their responsiveness and diligence has to be equi-balanced for all their consumers and all the human beings deserve to be treated with equal respect and sensitivity.

The Woman brought to the Court’s notice that she continuously suffered excruciating pain during the entire surgical procedure and despite bringing the fact to the knowledge of the medical practitioners during and after the procedure, no measures were taken to redress and reduce the discomfort suffered by her.  Calling it ‘an uncomfortable fact’, the Court said that not attending her immediately and snubbing her with the retort that ‘the people from hilly areas make unnecessary noise’, obviously, added insult to the injury and were least expected of the professionals on public duties.

Stating that the National Commission had been too restrictive in award of compensation, the Court said:
“Ordinarily, the general damages towards pain and suffering as also loss of amenities of life deserve to be considered uniformly for the human beings and the award of compensation cannot go restrictive when the victim is coming from a poor and rural background; rather, in a given case like that of the appellant, such a background of the victim may guide the adjudicatory process towards reasonably higher amount of compensation.”

The National Commission gad quantified the amount of compensation only at Rs. 2,00,000.

Article referred: https://blog.scconline.com/post/2019/03/07/sc-awards-rs-10-lakh-compensation-in-a-medical-negligence-case-to-send-message-to-medical-practitioners/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more

In merit-cum-senority selection process, merit should take precedence

In Tek Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board, the petition was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh that the Board (respondents) was not promoting him. The respondents contended that the appreciation letter per se did not confer any automatic right to claim promotion, as the promotion had to be made strictly in accordance with the Board’s management Regulations, thus, the Petitioner could not claim an out of turn promotion as he was listed at a rather lower rank. The Court held that in a case of selection based on merit-cum-seniority, it is a well settled principle that merit has to be given precedence over seniority. Accordingly, appeals were dismissed.
Post a Comment
Read more