Hon. Supreme Court saddled Rs.10 lakhs fine with a clear message that, "Doctors, be responsive and diligent equally with all the patients.

Hon. Supreme Court saddled Rs.10 lakhs fine with a clear message that, "Doctors, be responsive and diligent equally with all the patients.

Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

Case Details 

Shoda Devi V/s. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla & ors.

Civil Appeal No.2557/2019, Decided on 07/03/2019

CORAM :

Hon. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE J. & Hon. DINESH MAHESHWARI J.

Judgment Link :

https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/30932/30932_2018_Judgement_07-Mar-2019.pdf

Facts in short :

1. The Appellant  with poor and Village background, knocked the doors of Hon. Supreme Court against the Order of Consumer Forums. 

2. The Appellant was having menstrual problems, abdominal pains and approached the Respondent Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital. She was diagnosed with fibroid and endometrial hyperplasia, at last was advised to undergo minor operation viz., Fractional Curettage (D & C).

3. During the operation, she was given intravenous injections directly by a syringe in her right hand. However during entire procedure she suffered excruciating pains and complained the same to the Doctors, however in vain.

4. However complications with her right hands increased and as DDU Doctors could not handle it, she was shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital (IGMCH), that too in a Taxi arranged by her Husband. There, she was digaonsed with “acute arterial occlusion with ischemia of limb, caused by intra-arterial injection” and ultimately her right arm above the elbow had to be amputed, making her 80% disable, as per Medical Board.

5. FIR was also lodged with  Police Station, Sadar, Shimla and Complaint was filed with State Consumer Commission thereby alleging that with a team of doctors consisting of general physician and gynecologist in a rather casual manner; that no proper service was provided to her; that she was shifted to IGMCH only in a taxi arranged by her husband; and that she suffered amputation only due to the medical negligence of the medicos and para-medicos of the respondent No. 1.

6. The Respondents filed their affidavits and refuted all the contentions of negligence and it was contended that they took all proper care and gave best possible treatment to the patient who was admitted in emergent situation. The entire procedure lasted only for 5 minutes. It was also contended that limb ishemia can occur at any time irrespective of the root of administering the injection. Ultimately due to gangrene, her arm had to be amputed, to save her life. 

7. The State Commission dismissed the plea of Medical Negligence, however considering the poor background of the patient, directed Govt. to pay her Rs.2,93,526/- as ex-gratia . In appeal, the National Commission held the Respondents as guilty, but enhanced the compensation by Rs.2 lakhs and hence the appeal was filed in Supreme Court for enhancement of the compensation.

Held :

1. Hon. Apex Court after considering the evidence on record, allowed the Appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs.10 lakhs.

2. Hon. Apex Court was upset with the reasoning of the Lower Foras for awarding lesser compensation to the Appellant without considering her disablement and disadvantages.

If the Patient is poor and comes from Rural Background, he/she is entitled for 'restriction-less compensation'.

3. It was held that, Ordinarily, the general damages towards pain and suffering as also loss of amenities of life deserve to be considered uniformly for the human beings & if the victim is from poor and rural background (after considering all the attending circumstances) the award of compensation cannot go restrictive.

Compensation was enhanced to higher side in present case as a patient was poor and from village background and also to send message to the professionals that be responsive and diligent equally with all the patients !

4. Their Lordships observed that higher compensation in present case is needed for 2 reasons, 

1) To provide some succor 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

With her disablement and reduced contribution, the amount of compensation ought to be of such level as to provide relief in reasonable monetary terms to the appellant and to her family and therefore enhanced the compensation to Rs.10 lakhs with 6% interest from the date of filing of compliant (i.e. from 28/09/2006).

This judgment may open flood-gates of complaints, if the patient suffers some sort of disability owing to medical negligence and it is proved that the patient hails from poor and rural background, along with other factors. The Court has relied upon the observations made in the judgment  of Alfred Benddict v. Manipal Hospital: (2015) 11 SCC 423, where for the reason of medical negligence, a 2-year-old girl developed gangrene in right arm which resulted in its amputation. The disability hampers the growth of a person in manifold ways. 

A judgment to be kept in mind by Doctors..

Thanks and Regards,

Adv. Rohit Erande

Pune. ©