Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a batch of civil appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Original Petition No. 240 of 1999. The appeals were filed by the appellant-doctors (Dr. Balram Prasad, Dr. Baidyanath Haldar, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee), the appellant-AMRI Hospital, and the claimant-appellant Dr. Kunal Saha, all aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and the apportionment of liability for the death of Anuradha Saha due to medical negligence. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation contending it was inadequate, while the doctors and hospital sought reduction claiming it was excessive and that liability was unreasonably apportioned. The case had a complex procedural history: the original petition was filed in 1999 claiming Rs.77,07,45,000/- which was later amended; after remand by the Supreme Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, the National Commission held the doctors and hospital negligent and was directed to determine just compensation. The impugned order led to these cross appeals. A significant issue pertained to the proof of income of the deceased. The appellants argued that the claimant failed to plead or prove that the deceased had a stable job or income; only a computer-generated sheet showing a one-time payment was produced, with no appointment letter, salary slips, or income tax returns. No oral evidence was led on income. They contended that even if an annual income of $30,000 was assumed, the National Commission ought to have deducted personal living expenses (one-third as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben) and applicable taxes (as per United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan). The claimant relied on the evidence of foreign economic expert Prof. John F. Burke Jr., who estimated lifetime income at $5,125,000 and domestic service loss at $1,258,421. However, during cross-examination via video conferencing, the expert admitted he did not know the deceased's wages in 1997, whether she had individual income, had not seen her earning statement, and took no documents into consideration for his opinion; he also stated he did not believe she was employed at the time of death. The National Commission had earlier dismissed the claimant's applications to examine foreign experts, which were eventually allowed by the Supreme Court only for two experts. The claimant argued the evidence justified a higher compensation. The court was called upon to decide the correctness of the National Commission's approach to these issues. (The judgment excerpt does not contain the final decision of the Supreme Court.)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Commission's award of compensation is based on proper appreciation of evidence regarding income of the deceased, deductions for personal living expenses and taxes, and the admissibility and weight of foreign expert testimony; and whether the apportionment of liability among the doctors and hospital is reasonable.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
Case Details
2013 LawText (SC) (10) 75
Civil Appeal Nos. 2867, 692, 2866, 731, 858 of 2012
Advocate name not mentioned
Dr. Balram Prasad, Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd., Dr. Kunal Saha, Dr. Baidyanath Haldar, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee
Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors., Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Medical negligence compensation claim with cross appeals against National Commission's order on quantum and apportionment.
Remedy Sought
Claimant sought enhancement of compensation; doctors and hospital sought reduction and reapportionment.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the National Commission's award on compensation and liability distribution in Original Petition No. 240 of 1999.
Previous Decisions
Original Petition 240/1999 filed on 09.03.1999; National Commission held doctors and hospital negligent; Supreme Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly (2009) 9 SCC 221 remanded for determination of just compensation; National Commission passed impugned order on 21.10.2011.
Issues
Whether the claimant sufficiently proved the income of the deceased to support the quantum of compensation.
Whether the National Commission correctly deducted personal living expenses and taxes from the assumed income.
Whether the foreign expert evidence on lifetime income was admissible and reliable.
Whether the apportionment of liability among the appellant-doctors and the hospital was reasonable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued no pleading or proof of stable income; only a computer-generated one-time payment sheet produced, no employment documents or tax returns; onus not discharged.
Even if $30,000 annual income assumed, deduction of one-third for personal expenses and applicable taxes is mandatory per Supreme Court precedents.
Foreign expert Prof. John F. Burke Jr. admitted he did not know deceased's wages, had no income documents, and believed she was not employed at death; his lifetime income projection was baseless.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
there is no pleading in the petition of the claimant that the deceased had a stable job or a stable income
the only certificate produced by the claimant shows that she was just a graduate in Arts (English)
the computer generated sheet... does not explain for what work the remuneration, if at all was received by the deceased
the claimant had not led any oral evidence with regard to the income of the deceased
no appointment letter... no income certificate/salary sheet... No Income Tax Return has been produced
even if it is assumed that the annual income of the deceased was $30,000 per annum, apart from deduction on account of tax, it is also essential... to ascertain the personal living expenses
one–third of the gross income is required to be deducted
Prof. John F. Burke... has estimated the life time income of the deceased to be 5 million and 125 thousand US dollars without any supporting material
Q.21. What documents have you taken into consideration of Anu’s income for giving your opinion? A.21. None.
Q.22. Whether Anu was employed at the time of her death? A.22. I don’t think so; I don’t believe so.
Procedural History
Claimant filed Original Petition No. 240 of 1999 on 09.03.1999 claiming Rs.77,07,45,000/- compensation, later amended to add Rs.20,00,00,000/-. In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009), Supreme Court remanded the case to National Commission to award just compensation. National Commission held doctors and hospital negligent. Impugned order dated 21.10.2011 passed by National Commission determining compensation and apportioning liability. Claimant filed multiple applications to examine foreign experts; initially dismissed by National Commission; Supreme Court allowed examination of Prof. John F. Burke Jr. via video conferencing on 26.04.2011. Other experts given up. All parties filed appeals in Supreme Court against the National Commission's order.
