Supreme Court unhappy over low compensation awarded by NCDRC, State Consumer Forum

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to two consumer fora awarding low compensation in a medical negligence case despite strong findings in the claimant's favour [Jyoti Devi vs Suket Hospital and ors]..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar made it clear that it failed to understand the reasoning of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission in this regard."The NCDRC observed that the claimant-appellant’s treatment at the respondent-Hospital was ‘casual’ ... that she had suffered pain for more than 5 years apart from the case having been dragged on for more than a decade, and yet lumpsum compensation was only Rs. 2 lakhs. How could such compensation be justified ... is something we fail to comprehend. Compensation by its very nature, has to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she has been awarded a sum which can, at best, be described as ‘paltry’," the apex court said. .The observations came while disposing of an appeal against an NCDRC order. The NCDRC had upheld the State Commission's order but increased the lumpsum compensation from ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh. The State consumer fora had reduced the compensation amount from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 lakh. By way of background, the appellant-patient had an appendicitis removal surgery at Suket Hospital in Himachal Pradesh's Mandi in June 2005. The surgery failed and the patient continued to suffer pain for four years after the procedure despite assurances by doctors.Eventually, a Chandigarh hospital found that a needle had been stuck in her stomach during the earlier surgery.Aggrieved, she sought ₹19.8 lakh as compensation.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mandi ordered Suket hospital to pay her a compensation of ₹5 lakh.The hospital appealed against the same and the State Commission reduced the compensation amount to ₹1 lakh.The NCDRD then enhanced the compensation to ₹2 lakh. The claimant then moved the apex court in appeal.The top court at the outset said it cannot agree with the orders of two fora below as regards the compensation amount. "We find the manner in which compensation stood reduced by the State Commission as also the NCDRC, vis-à-vis the District Forum to be based on questionable reasoning ... The State Commission ... found it appropriate to reduce the compensation to a mere Rs.1 lakh. This clearly is not in line with the balance of interests required to be borne in mind while determining compensation."Further, none of the fora had found the claimant to have any pre-existing condition that could explain the pain and damage caused by the 2005 surgery. The Supreme Court, thus, ruled in the appellant's favour and enhanced the compensation to ₹5 lakh. "A sum of Rs.5 lakhs ought to be paid expeditiously by the respondents to the appellant for being medically negligent and providing services deficient in nature," the Court ordered..The orders of the NCDRC and State Commission were set aside and the order of the District Forum was restored.The ₹5 lakh compensation was directed to be paid with simple interest of 9 per cent from the date of award of the District Forum. Further, ₹50,000 was directed to be paid to the claimant as litigation expenses..Advocates Subhash Chandran KR, Biju P Raman, Krishna LR and John Thomas Arakal appeared for the claimant, one Jyoti Devi.Advocates JPN Shahi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha and Vimal Sinha appeared for the hospital and accused-doctors..[Read Judgment]