Supreme Court Enhances Compensation For Botched Surgery; Chides NCDRC And State Commission For Awarding Meagre Amount To Patient

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation For Botched Surgery; Chides NCDRC And State Commission For Awarding Meagre Amount To Patient

Orders Suket Hospital in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to pay the complainant ₹5 lakhs with interest and ₹50,000 for litigation cost.

The Supreme Court has taken exception to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission for awarding low compensation in a medical negligence case despite strong findings in the claimant's favor.

In the Jyoti Devi vs Suket Hospital and Ors case, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar said that it failed to understand the reasoning of the two forums for awarding a low amount to the patient.

The Top Court stated, "The NCDRC observed that the claimant’s treatment at the respondent-hospital was ‘casual’. She suffered pain for more than five years, apart from the case being dragged for over a decade. Yet, the lumpsum compensation was only ₹2 lakhs. How could such compensation be justified? It should be just. For the suffering, no part of which was the claimant’s fault, she was awarded a ‘paltry’ sum.”

The observation came while disposing of an appeal against the NCDRC order, upholding the State Commission's order and increasing the compensation from ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakhs. The State Commission had reduced the amount from ₹5 lakhs to ₹1 lakh.

In 2005, the complainant-patient, Jyoti Devi, had an appendicitis removal surgery at Suket Hospital in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

The surgery failed and the patient continued to suffer pain for four years after the procedure despite assurances by doctors. Eventually, a Chandigarh hospital found that a needle had been stuck in her abdomen during the earlier surgery.

Aggrieved by the situation, the patient sought compensation of ₹19.8 lakhs.

The DCDRC ordered Suket Hospital to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation to the complainant.

However, the hospital appealed against it, and the amount was reduced to ₹1 lakh by the State Commission. Later, the NCDRC enhanced it to ₹2 lakhs.

Finding the amount inadequate, the claimant appealed before the top court, which admitted the amount decided by the two forums was meagre.

Justice Karol and Justice Kumar held, "The manner in which the compensation was reduced by the State Commission and the NCDRC is questionable. This is not in line with the balance of interests while determining the compensation."

Thus, setting aside the orders of the two forums, the bench ruled in the appellant's favor and enhanced the compensation amount to ₹5 lakhs for medically negligence and services deficiency. The amount was to be paid with an interest of 9 percent. Additionally, ₹50,000 was awarded as litigation expenses.

Advocates Subhash Chandran K. R, Biju P. Raman, Krishna L. R and John Thomas Arakal appeared for Jyoti Devi.

The hospital and the accused doctors were represented by Advocates J. P. N. Shahi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha and Vimal Sinha.