LexV KRISHNAKUMAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015) 8 S.C.R. 100 V KRISHNAKUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8065 of 2009) JULY01,2015 [JAG DISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical negligence c - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Enhancement - Prematurely born baby girl lost her eye sight - Case of the parents that respondents-State of Tamil Nadu, its Government hospital and two government doctors negligent in not screening the child for Retinopathy of prematurity-ROP D as also not advising screening for ROP - National Commission holding it to be medical negligence against respondents - Award of Rs. 5, 00, 0001- as compensation to the father - On appeals, held: National Commission rightly held that the respondents were negligent in their duty and E were deficient in their services in not screening the child between 2 to 4 weeks after birth when it is mandatory to do so and especially since the child was under their care - In lieu of past medical expenses, future medical expenses, inflationary fluctuations respondents to pay Rs. 1, 38, 00, 0001 F - (as apportioned) in the form of a Fixed Deposit, in the name of the baby girl - Said amount would yield an approximate annualinterest of Rs. 12, 00, 0001-. G Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The unequivocal findings of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- NCDRC that at no stage, the appellant was warned or told about the possibility of occurrence of Retinopathy H of Prematurity-ROP by the respondents even though it 100 V. KRISHNAKUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 101 was their duty to do so, cannot be faulted with. Neither A did they explain anywhere in their affidavit that they warned of the possibility of the occurrence of ROP knowing fully well that the chances of such occurrence existed and that this constituted a gross deficiency in service, nor did they refer to a paediatric B ophthalmologist. Further, respondent Nos. 3 & 4-doctors did not appeal to this Court against the judgment of the NCDRC and thus, accepted the finding of medical negligence against them. [Para 12] [113-C-E] 1.2 The findings of the NCDRC that the respondents were negligent in their duty and were deficient in their services in not screening the child between 2 to 4 weeks after birth when it is mandatory to c do so and especially since the child was under their care, D is concurred with. Thus, the negligence began under the supervision of the Hospital-respondent No.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who checked the baby at his private clinic and at the appellant's home, respectively, were also negligent in not advising screening for ROP. E Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 carried on their own private practice while being in the employment of respondent No. 2, which was a violation of their terms of service. [Para 13] [113-F-H; 114-A] F 1.3 The child called 'S' has been rendered blind for life. The darkness in her life can never be really compensated for in money terms. Though, 'S' may have parents now, there is no doubt that she will not have that G- protection and care forever. The family belongs to the middle class and it is necessary for the father to attend to his work. Undoubtedly, the mother would not be able- to take 'S' out everywhere and is bound to leave the child alone for reasonable spells of time. During this time, it is H obvious that she would require help and maybe later on 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A in life she would have to totally rely on such help. It is therefore, difficult to imagine unhindered marriage prospects or even a regular career which she may have otherwise pursued with ease. She may also face great difficulties in getting education. The parents have already B incurred heavy expenditure on the treatment of 'S' to no .avail. It is, thus, obvious that tl)ere should be adequate compensation for the expenses already incurred, the pain and suffering, lost wages and the future care that would be necessary while accounting for inflationary C trends. There is no doubt that in the future 'S' would require further medical attention and would have to incur costs on medicines and possible surgery. It can be reasonably said that the blindness has put 'S' at a great 0 disadvantage in her pursuit for making a good living to care for herself. [Para 14, 15] [114-8-G] 1.4 The amount of Rs. 42,87,921/- (Rs. 41,37,921/- expenditure incurred by the fa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.