In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a landmark judgment was passed regarding medical negligence compensation. The case involved Kurji Holy Family Hospital and an Operating Surgeon in a lawsuit concerning a critical surgery. The Court directed the Hospital to pay just and enhanced compensation for negligence, setting a precedent for accountability in medical practices.
Facts
- Dr. Arun Tiwari referred the patient to Kurji Holy Family Hospital on 10.11.1995 after examining the blood report.
- The surgery on the patient was conducted on 11.11.1995 when the platelets count was 35000 per cu.mm at about 11:15 AM.
- Before the surgery, the patient was transfused with two units of blood, and after the surgery, another two units of blood were transfused.
- Despite bleeding and efforts to control leakages, the patient’s relatives discharged him from Kurji Holy Family Hospital on 13.11.1995 at around 2:00 PM.
- The patient was later admitted to Patna Medical College and Hospital where he passed away on 16.11.1995.
- Dr. Hare Ram Singh provided an affidavit stating that the patient was operated with extremely low platelet count, which he deemed a clear case of extreme negligence.
- The Operating Surgeon was cautioned to be more careful in the future.
- The post-operative note indicated discrepancies in the diagnosis between haemophilia and peritonitis.
- The SCDRC found negligence on the part of the Operating Surgeon for conducting the surgery with a significantly low platelet count.
- The SCDRC awarded compensation to be paid by Kurji Holy Family Hospital and the Operating Surgeon, along with additional costs.
- The NCDRC absolved Opposite Party No. 3 (the Operating Surgeon) of the damages imposed by SCDRC.
- The Operating Surgeon was advised to seek specialist consultation.
Also Read: Property Inheritance Dispute: The Legacy of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel
Analysis
- The Operating Surgeon made a bona fide decision given the critical medical condition of the patient.
- Tests conducted showed low platelet count and abnormal bleeding and clotting times.
- The surgery to remove round worms was not proven to be immediately necessary to save the patient’s life.
- Absence of evidence that surgery was the only life-saving option available at the time questions the prudence of the decision to operate.
- Lack of complete evidence about the patient’s condition at admission raises doubts about the negligence claim against the Operating Surgeon.
- The NCDRC held that the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the SCDRC against the Hospital is just compensation.
- In a case of medical negligence at the time of delivery of a baby girl born to a middle-class family, the Supreme Court held that the compensation has to be calculated based on the twin criteria of age and income.
- The NCDRC should not have interfered with the amount of compensation awarded by the SCDRC but could have apportioned the amount payable by the Operating Surgeon to the Hospital as the Hospital’s liability is vicarious.
- In the case of medical negligence, professionals should be held liable for their acts or omissions in order to make life safer and eliminate the possibility of recurrence of negligence in the future.
- A Constitution Bench in a judgment laid down parameters for granting compensation in motor vehicular accidents based on fairness, reasonableness, and equitability on an acceptable legal standard.
Also Read: Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma vs. Ministry of Defence: OROP Entitlement for Army Postal Service Personnel
Decision
- The Hospital is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as just compensation.
- An additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be paid by the Hospital.
- The Hospital must pay this enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 12.11.2014.
- The appeal is partly allowed as per the mentioned conditions.
Also Read: Financial Capacity and Specific Performance: A Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court Of India
Case Title: NAND KISHORE PRASAD Vs. MOHIB HAMIDI
Case Number: C.A. No.-004619-004619 / 2019
