In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment in a medical negligence case, setting new standards for compensation and affirming the rights of patients. The case has drawn attention to the intricacies of medical malpractice law and the responsibilities of healthcare providers.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar, emphasized the fundamental principles underlying the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986, and shed light on the legal nuances surrounding medical negligence claims. Counsel for the appellant, whose name was not mentioned in the judgment, argued vehemently for just compensation, citing precedents such as C. Venkatachalam vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah, J.J. Merchant (Dr) vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, and Common Cause vs. Union of India.
Justice Karol, in his eloquent articulation of the court’s decision, stated, “The impugned judgment fails to adequately consider the enduring suffering of the claimant-appellant, whose pain and anguish persisted for over five years due to the negligence of the respondent Hospital.” He further emphasized the duty of care owed by medical practitioners, citing M.A Biviji vs. Sunita & Ors., and underscored the necessity for meticulous post-operative care, as outlined in Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh.
The judgment delved into the complex issue of determining compensation in cases of medical negligence, citing Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka to elucidate the delicate balance between the interests of the victim and the liabilities of the accused.
Justice Karol remarked, “Compensation must be not only adequate but also fair and equitable, reflecting the extent of the victim’s suffering and the culpability of the negligent party.”
A pivotal aspect of the judgment was the application of the Eggshell Skull Rule, a principle derived from common law that holds wrongdoers liable for unforeseeable consequences of their actions on particularly vulnerable individuals. Referencing Dulieu vs. While & Sons, White and Others vs. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others, and Athey vs. Leonati, Justice Karol elucidated the applicability of this doctrine in cases of medical negligence, stressing the need for a pre-existing condition or vulnerability.
The court’s ruling overturned previous decisions by the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reinstating the original award of Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation to the appellant. The judgment also mandated an additional interest of 9% and litigation costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the respondents within a stipulated timeframe.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Name: JYOTI DEV Vs. SUKET HOSPITAL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.242 of 2016)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar
Order date 23.04.2024