DR. BALRAM PRASAD versus DR. KUNAL SAHA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 24-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 30 
DR. BALRAM PRASAD 
v. 
DR. KUNAL SAHA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2867 of 2012 etc.) 
OCTOBER 24, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: 
Complaint -
Medical negligence -
Contributory 
negligence - Death of an US f)ased patient in hospital in India 
- National Commission holding the hospital and doctors liable 
for medical negligence as also the husband of deceased 
D liable for contributory negligence and, as such, deducting 10% 
towards contributory negligence from compensation, awarding 
Rs. 1,55,58,750 to claimant - Held: Appellant-Hospital is 
vicariously liable for its doctors and is, therefore, directed to 
pay total amount of compensation amounting to 
E Rs. 6, 08, 00, 5501-, under various heads as detailed in 
judgment, after deducting Rs.25 lakhs payable by appellants-
doctors - National Commission erred in holding that claimant 
had contributed to negligence of appellant-doctors and 
Hospital which resulted in death of his wife when Supreme 
F 
Court had clearly absolved the claimant of such liability and 
remanded the matter back to National Commission only for 
determining the quantum of compensation - Finding of 
National Commission in this regard is set aside and it is re-
emphasized that claimant did not contribute to negligence of 
appellants-doctors and Hospital which resulted in death of his 
G wife - Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 - r. ·r4(c). 
H 
Enhancement of compensation by complainant 
subsequent to filing of claim petition - Claimant making 
30 
DR. BALRAM PRASAD v. DR. KUNAL SAHA & ORS. 
31 
additional claims by way of affidavit before National A 
Commission - Held: Claim for enhancement of compensation 
by claimant is justified - Claimant is entitled for enhanced 
compensation under certain items in additional claim 
preferred before National Commission - Further, claim of 
claimant having remained pending for 15 years, value of B 
money has devalued to a great extent - Therefore, inflation 
should be considered while deciding the quantum of 
compensation - It is wholly untenable in law for the 'Hospital 
and the doctors to plead that without there being an 
amendment to the claim petition, the claimant is not entitled c 
to seek the additional claims by way of affidavit, and that the 
claim is ~arred by limitation -- Supreme Court has got the 
power under Art. 136 of the Constitution and the duty to award 
just and reasonable compensation to do complete justice to 
the affected claimant - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
D 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136. 
Just and fair compensation - Held: Status, future 
prospects and educational qualification of deceased must be 
judged for deciding adequate, just and fair compensation -
Principle of just and reasonable compensation is based on E 
'restitutio in integrum', i.e., claimant must receive the sum of 
money which would put him in the same position as he would 
have been if he had not sustained the wrong - Court is duty 
bound and entitled to award just compensation' irrespective 
of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by F 
claimant or not. 
Future prospects of income - Held, 'Future loss. of 
income' is different from 'future prospects of income' in terms 
of potential of victim - Jn awarding just and reasonable G 
compensation, future prospects of deceased must have been 
reasonably judged by the National Commission. 
Medical negligence - Compensation - Multiplier method 
Held: Just, fair and reasonable compensation has to be 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A determined on the basis of the income of aeceased at the 
time of death of the victim and other related claims on 
account of the death - Therefore, the plea to apply tile 
multiplier method in determination of compensation, does not 
inspire confidence. 
B 
Medical negligence - Death of patient - Compensation 
towards loss of income of deceased - Held: While 
determining the income of deceased, evidence on record has 
to be relied on - Further, 30% added towards future loss of 
C income of deceased - 113 of total income is required to be 
deducted towards personal expenditure of deceased -
Estimating the life expectancy of a healthy person as 70 years, 
compensation to be awarded by multiplying the total loss of 
income by 30. 
D 
Medical negligence - Death of patient - Claim by 
husband under the heads loss of income for missed work, 
travel expenses and legal expe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.