M/S. SPRING MEADOWS HOSPITAL ANO ANR. versus HARJOL AHULWALIA THROUGH K.S. AHULWALIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 25-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M/S. SPRING MEADOWS HOSPITAL ANO ANR. 
v. 
HARJOL AHULWALIA THROUGH 
K.S. AHULWALIA AND ANR. 
MARCH 25, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(i)(d)(ii)-Consumer-
Definition of-ls wide and includes J:erson who hires or avail services-And 
C also beneficiary of such services others than the person who hires or avails 
services-Minor child admitted and treated in the hospital by doctor-Held, 
both the parents of the child as well as the child would be 'Consumer' within 
the meaning of Section 2(i)(d)(ii). 
D 
Compensation-Medical Services-Minor child admitted to hospital-
Diagnosised as Typhoid Fever-Jnjuction administered without testing 
sensitivity-Child collapsed-Suffered cardiac arrest-Rendered in vegetative 
state, brain damaged-Hospital authorities negligent-Irreparable loss 
suffered by the child and his parents-Held, awarding compensation to child 
E 
F 
and his parents for injury each one of them has sustained is justified. 
Medical Services-Function of-Medical ethics-To ensure that 
superiority of doctors is not abused in any manner. 
Medical Services-Hospital authorities negligent-Irreparable loss 
suffered by both the child as well as parents-Mental agony of parents-
Cannot be undone by the approach shown by the hospital authorities. 
The Respondents claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 28 lacs on 
account of negligence and deficiency on the part of the hospital authorities 
for the irreparable damages suffered and the minor child having been reduced 
to a vegetative state. The National Commission awarded Rs. 12.5 lacs as 
compensation to the minor child and Rs. 5 lacs to the parents of the minor 
G child. 
In this appeal challenging the order of the Commission the appellants 
contended that the complaint having been filed by the minor child who was 
the inpatient in the ho~pital through his parents, the said minor child can 
only be the consumer and parents cannot claim any compensation under the 
H Consumer Protection Act for the mental agony they have suffered and award 
428 
SPRING MEADOWS HOSPITAL v. H. AHULWALIA 
429 
of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs is favour of the parents is beyond the competence A 
of the Commission, and therefore, Section 14(d) of Consumer Protection 
" 
Act, should not be interpreted in such a way enabling the Commission to 
award compensation both to the minor child and his parents. The appellants 
further contested the claim of the perants for mental agony on the pretext 
of the humanitarian approach shown by the hospital authorities. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
.. 
.( 
HELD : 1. The National Commission has rightly awarded compensation 
in favour of the parents in addition to the compensation in favour of the minor 
child. 
c 
2. The definition clause (ii) of Section 2(i)(d) is wide enough to include 
not only the person who hires or avails services but also the beneficiary of 
such services ot:1er than the person who hires services. As such both the 
child as well as the parents of the child come within the meaning of Section-
2(i)(d)(ii) of the Act and compensation awarded in favour of both of them is D 
justified. (438-F( 
3. There is no infirmity in order of the Commission awarding different 
amounts of compensation on different heads, to both the consumers, firstly 
the minor child taking into account the cost of equipments and the recurring 
expenses that would be necessary for the minor child who is merely having E 
vegetative life and secondly the parents of the minor child for their acute 
mental agony and the life long care and attention which the parents would 
have to bestow on the minor child. (439-C-D( 
4. The attitude of a patient is poised between trust in the learning of 
,_ 
another and the general distress of one who is in a state of uncertainty and F 
-
such ambivalence naturally leads to a sense of inferiority and it is, therefore, 
the function of medical ethics ot ensure that the superiority of the doctor is 
not.abused in any manner. (436-C( 
5. The compensation claimed by the parents of the minor child for 
their life long mental agony cannot be undone by the humanitrain approach G 
shown by the hospital authorities. (439-H( 
( 
Whitehouse v. Jordan and another, (B&I) I All ER 267, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 
1997 Etc. 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.97 of the National Consumer 
B 
c 

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