NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES versus PRASANATH S. DHANANKA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 14-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 313 
. ..> 
NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 
A 
v. 
PRASANATH S. DHANANKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4119 of 1999 etc.) 
~ 
MAY 14, 2009 
B 
~ 
[B.N. AGRAWAL, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND G.S. 
SINGHVI, JJ.] 
Negligence - Medical negligence - Compensation -
Twenty year old Engineering student - Operation conducted c 
on - Resulting in acute paraplegia with complete loss of 
control over the lower limbs -
Complaint filed alleging 
negligence before, during and after the operation - Claim of 
.... 
compensation of about Rs. 4.61 crores -
Consumer 
Commission holding that there was negligence and deficiency 
D 
of service before, during and after the operation and directing 
compensation of Rs. 14 lakhs -
On appeal, Claim of 
compensation of Rs. 7.50 crores and seeking direction to 
keep aside further 2 crores for use in future if some 
developments beneficial to complainant in the medical field 
take place - Held: Attending doctors were remiss in their 
E 
~ 
conduct at pre-operative and at operative stage - However, 
case of negligence at post-operative stage not made out -
,.. 
Once initial burden has been discharged by the complainant 
by making out a case of negligence, the onus shifts onto the 
F 
hospital or attending doctors to prove lack of negligence -
Compensation of Rs. 1 crore would be appropriate - Claim 
of Rs. 2 crores is hypothetical hence cannot be allowed - The 
court has to strike a balance between inflated and 
~ 
unreasonable demands of victim and the claim of opposite 
G 
' 
party negating its liability in its entirety - In a case of the 
present kind, use of multiplier method for determining 
compensation is not proper - Compensation - Consumer 
Protection - Deficiency in service. 
313 
H 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
JO-. 
A 
Respondent-complainant, a twenty year old student 
of Engineering, visited the appellant-hospital for 
examination of his ailment. An innocent tumor was 
detected in X-ray. As several attempts at Fine Needle 
Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) did not give any conclusive 
t 
B result, he was suggested excision biopsy. He was 
' 
referred to a Cardio Thoracic Surgeon, who operated on 
him, for excision of the tumour. Immediately after the 
,... 
surgery, the complainant developed acute paraplegia 
with complete loss of control over the lower limbs and 
c some other related complications. This led to his 
prolonged hospitalization. He was discharged from the 
hospital completely paralyzed. He , therefore, required 
continuous physiotherapy and nursing care. 
D 
Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before National 
Consumer Redressal Commission, alleging utter and 
j.. 
complete negligence on the part of the doctor who· had 
operated on him. The negligence was alleged at three 
stages i.e. before, during and after the operation. He made 
a claim of Rs. 4,61,31,152/-. The appellant-hospital and the 
E doctors denied the allegations. The State Government 
also disowned any liability. The Commission held that 
there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part 
of the hospital at all stages of the case i.e. at pre-operative 
)-
stage, operative stage and post-operative stage. 
' 
F However, it negated complainant's plea that no consent 
for the excision of tumour had been taken, holding that 
prior implied consent had been taken. The Commission 
directed payment of compensation of Rs. 14 lakhs. It also 
.._ 
granted compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the parents of 
G complainant. Hence these cross-appeals. 
.....,;.. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The attending doctors were seriously 
remiss in the conduct of the operation and it was on 
H account of this negligence that the Paraplegia had set in. 
... 
,./; 
l 
, 
NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. 
315 
PRASANATHS.DHANANKA 
,. 
They were also seriously remiss in not associating a 
A 
neuro-surgeon at the pre-operative as well as at the stage 
of the operation. [Paras 27 and 33] [357-A; 362-E-F] 
,. 
1.2. Complete investigations prior to the actual 
operation had not been carried out. The main plea of the 
8 
complainant is that the pre-operation examinations had 
~ 
revealed a situation which required the intervention of a 
Neuro Surgeon. The case of respondent-doctor however, 
is that the involvement of the vertebral column had been 
revealed only after the removal of the tumour. The c 
assertion of the doctor is incorrect. In the pre-operative 
discharge record, dated 19th Se

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