Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shoda Devi, a 45-year-old woman from a poor rural background, suffered from abdomen pain and menstrual problems. She approached DDU Hospital, Shimla, where she was diagnosed with fibroid and endometrial hyperplasia. On 18 July 2006, she was advised to undergo a minor operation, Fractional Curettage (D&C). On 19 July 2006, a para-medico administered an intravenous injection of Phenergan and Fortwin in her right arm. The appellant experienced excruciating pain during and after the procedure, but no immediate measures were taken. Due to complications, she was shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (IGMCH) in a taxi arranged by her husband. At IGMCH, she was diagnosed with acute arterial occlusion with ischemia of limb caused by intra-arterial injection, leading to amputation of her right arm above the elbow on 22 July 2006. The appellant filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on merits but directed ex gratia payment of Rs. 2,93,526/-. The National Commission, on appeal, held the respondents liable for medical negligence and awarded additional compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The appellant sought enhancement of compensation. The Supreme Court found that the National Commission's findings on medical negligence were correct, noting that the respondents failed to provide an ambulance, delayed attending to the appellant's pain, and did not use a cannula to prevent mishaps. However, the Court held that the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was inadequate given the 80% permanent disablement, loss of limb, and the appellant's age and background. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
Headnote
A) Medical Negligence - Res Ipsa Loquitur - Standard of Care - The principle of res ipsa loquitur applies where the injury is such that it does not ordinarily occur without negligence, and the respondents failed to take preventive measures despite complaints of pain, leading to amputation - Held that the findings of medical negligence by the National Commission are correct and do not call for interference (Paras 13-14). B) Compensation - Quantum of Damages - Permanent Disablement - Loss of Limb - The appellant, a 45-year-old woman from a poor rural background, suffered 80% permanent disablement due to amputation of her right arm above the elbow - The National Commission awarded only Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to ex gratia of Rs. 2,93,526/-, which is inadequate considering the severity of injury and loss of earning capacity - Held that compensation must be enhanced to Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the National Commission for medical negligence resulting in amputation of the appellant's right arm is adequate and requires enhancement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- (in addition to the ex gratia amount of Rs. 2,93,526/-), with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.
Law Points
- Medical negligence
- res ipsa loquitur
- compensation for personal injury
- quantum of damages
- duty of care in medical treatment
- vicarious liability of hospital
