SHODA DEVI versus DDU/RIPON HOSPITAL SHIMLA AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 07-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
SHODA DEVI
v.
DDU/RIPON HOSPITAL SHIMLA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2557 of 2019)
MARCH 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Medical negligence – Compensation – Appellant’s case was
that she was admitted in respondent-Hospital on account of abdomen
pain and menstrual problem where she was examined by respondent
no.2 and diagnosed with having fibroids and endometrial
hyperplasia and had to undergo minor operation – For the said
purpose, respondent no.3-para-medico administered intravenous
injection of Phenergan directly by a syringe in her right arm –
Appellant continuously suffered excruciating pain during the entire
surgical procedure and despite bringing the fact to the knowledge
of respondents-doctors during and after the procedure, no measures
were taken to  reduce the discomfort suffered by her – Due to the
complications that arose in regard to arm of the appellant which
could not be handled by the team of doctors at respondent-Hospital,
she was shifted to another hospital in a taxi arranged by her husband
where she was diagnosed with acute arterial occlusion with ischemia
of limb caused by intra arterial injection which ultimately resulted
in amputation of her right arm above the elbow – Claim petition by
appellant – State Commission rejected the complaint but directed
the respondent to make ex gratia payment of Rs.2,93,526/- to the
appellant – National Commission held that it was a clear case of
medical negligence and awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakh –
Appeal for enhancement of compensation amount – Held: Appellant
was 45 years of age when her right arm was amputated –  She
belonged to a very poor and rural background and was covered
under Integrated Rural Development Programme – National
Commission, even after finding it to be a case of medical negligence
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 945
945
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
quantified the amount of compensation only at Rs. 2,00,000/- –
When the appellant is shown to be a poor lady from rural
background, her contribution in ensuring the family meeting both
ends also deserved due consideration – 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 – Appellant is allowed Rs. 10,00,000/-
towards compensation, over and above the amount awarded by the
State Commission and the National Commission.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Medical negligence – Compensation –  Determining
factors – Ordinarily, the general damages towards pain and suffering
as also loss of amenities of life deserve to be considered uniformly
for the human beings and the award of compensation cannot go
restrictive when the victim is coming from a poor and rural
background; rather, in a given case like that of the appellant, such
a background of the victim may guide the adjudicatory process
towards reasonably higher amount of compensation after having
regard to all the attending circumstances.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The State Commission though recorded that with
the onset of gangrene, amputation of the right arm of the appellant
was carried out with a view to save her life but dismissed the
complaint on rather untenable grounds like that the surgery
would not have been successful if sedation was not complete and
proper; and that the appellant was referred to another hospital
for more effective treatment after all the efforts at the respondent
hospital were exhausted. In appeal, the National Commission
minutely examined the evidence on record and concluded on the
medical negligence of respondents for several counts such as:
not providing or making arrangements for an ambulance for proper
shifting of the appellant; not attending on the appellant at the
first instance on her complaint about unbearable pain and the
delay having aggravated the ischemic process; and though cannula
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
was not used as it was a one-time prick for the procedure, yet it
should have been used to prevent mishaps. There is no infirmity
in the findings of the National Commission, in so far the issue of
medical negligence is concerned.  However, after having recorded
clear findings on medical negligence and after taking note of the
directions of the State Commission regarding ex gratia payment,
the National Commission considered it proper to award to the
a

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