Recently, the Supreme Court of
India awarded a compensation of Rs.6,08,00,550 for Medical Negligence to Kunal
Saha, a US Based Doctor who fought a 15 year long legal battle to prove the
charge of medical negligence on four doctors and the AMRI Hospital of Kolkata
for the death of his wife Anuradha in 1998.
This is a trendsetting judgment
as never before has the court awarded such a huge compensation in any Medical
Negligence case. This case has been discussed at length by the media. Thus, I
will not go into the facts of this case. I will deal only with the legal
aspects of this case. The social impact and the symbolic value of this case has
already been discussed by a great number of scholars. Hence, no need to go into that as well.
Brief
Facts
1. In the
case of Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr.
Sukumar Mukherjee[1],
the Supreme Court remanded this matter to the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission to award just and reasonable compensation to Mr. Kunal
Saha (the Claimant).
2. The
National Commission held the doctors and the AMRI Hospital negligent in treating the wife of the claimant on account of which
she died and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,55,60,000 to the claimant.
3. The
doctors and the Hospital were aggrieved by this amount of compensation awarded
by the National Commission to be too harsh and unjust.
4. On the
other hand, the claimant (Dr.Saha) was aggrieved by the inadequate amount of
compensation. He considered this sum to be much lesser than what he had claimed
and what he thought to be just.
5. Hence,
the matter came up before the Supreme Court. Following is the damages claimed
by the claimant in this case.
Issues
Framed by the Court
1. Whether the claim of the
claimant for enhancement of compensation in his appeal is justified. If it is
so, for what compensation he is entitled to?
2. While making additional
claim by way of affidavit before the National Commission when amending the
claim petition, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation on the
enhanced claim preferred before the National Commission?
3(a) Whether the claimant
seeking to amend the claim of compensation under certain heads in the original
claim petition has forfeited his right of claim under Order II Rule 2 of CPC as
pleaded by the AMRI Hospital?
3(b) Whether the claimant is
justified in claiming additional amount for compensation under different heads
without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act and the Rules?
Answer
to Issue No. 1, 2 and 3
The court held that the claim for
enhancement of the compensation is justified on the following grounds.
- The
claim has been pending for the last 15 years. Since then, Rupee has devalued
significantly. Also, various cases were cited that held that inflation
must be taken into consideration for the purposes of such calculations.
- The
principle of restitutio in integrum was applied. The said principle
provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible,
get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would
have been if he had not sustained the wrong[2].
- Various
cases where more compensation was awarded than what was claimed were
cited. Also, rather than relying on the technical and the procedural
requirements, emphasis was laid on the duty to award just and reasonable
compensation to do complete justice to the affected claimant.
- Hence
all three points were decided in favour of the claimant.
4. Whether the National
Commission is justified in adopting the multiplier method to determine the
compensation and to award the compensation in favour of the claimant?
Answer
to Issue No. 4
The court said that it is
skeptical about using a strait jacket multiplier method for determining the
quantum of compensation in medical negligence claims. The claimant cited cases
such as Samira Kholi v. Dr. Prabha
Manchanda & Anr., P.G. Institute of Medical Sciences v. Jaspal Singh &
Ors., Nizam Institute v. Prasant Dhananka, Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar
Mukherjee & Ors. V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Superspeciality Hospital & Anr.
and other such cases to contend that not
a single case mentioned above was decided by using the multiplier method. Thus,
this point was also decided in the favour of the claimant.
5. Whether the claimant is
entitled to pecuniary damages under the heads of loss of employment, loss of
his property and his traveling expenses from U.S.A. to India to conduct the
proceedings in his claim petition?
Answer
to Issue No. 5
This issue was also decided in
the favour of the claimant. Compensation under various heads such as cost of
litigation, legal expenses, travelling expenses was given by the court.
6. Whether the claimant is
entitled to the interest on the compensation that would be awarded?
Answer
to Issue No. 6
The court observed that
normally when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be
granted for the period during which the money was due, but could not be
utilised by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of money was
passed. The object of a court in awarding interest to a successful litigant is
to compensate him for being kept out of money which the court has found is
properly due to him. The court also held that not granting interest was not
only unreasonable but also against the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978.
7. Whether the compensation
awarded in the impugned judgment and the apportionment of the compensation amount
fastened upon the doctors and the hospital requires interference and whether
the claimant is liable for contributory negligence and deduction of
compensation under this head?
Answer
to Issue No.7
The court held that the AMRI
Hospital is vicariously liable for its doctors. It is clearly mentioned in
Savita Garg’s case that a Hospital is responsible for the conduct of its
doctors both on the panel and the visiting doctors.
The court absolved Dr. Kunal
Saha of all liabilities and held that he is in no manner responsible for
Contributory negligence for the death of his wife. It was held in the Malay
Kumar’s case that:
“122.
The respondents also sought to highlight on the number of antibiotics which are
said to have been administered by Kunal to Anuradha while she was in AMRI
contending that the said antibiotics were necessary. Kunal, however, submitted
that the said antibiotics were prescribed by the doctors at AMRI and he did not
write any prescription. We would, however, assume that the said antibiotics had
been administered by Kunal on his own, but
it now stands admitted that administration of such antibiotics was necessary.
123.
To conclude, it will be pertinent to note that even if we agree that there was
interference by Kunal Saha during the treatment, it in no way diminishes the
primary responsibility and default in duty on part of the defendants. In spite
of a possibility of him playing an overanxious role during the medical
proceedings, the breach of duty to take basic standard of medical care on the
part of defendants is not diluted. To that extent, contributory negligence is
not pertinent. It may, however, have some role to play for the purpose of
damages.”
Quoting from the judgment, a
careful reading of the above paragraphs together from the decision of Malay Kumar
Ganguly’s case would go to show that the claimant though overanxious, did to
the patient what was necessary as a part of the treatment. According to the
Supreme Court, the National Commission erred in reading in isolation the
statement of the Supreme Court that the claimant’s action may have played some
role for the purpose of damage.
Hence, the court re-emphasized
the finding that the claimant did not contribute to the negligence of the
appellants-doctors and AMRI Hospital which resulted in the death of his wife.
8. To what Order and Award the
claimant is entitled to in these appeals?
Answer
to Issue No. 8
Damages
claimed by Dr. Kunal Saha
Final Details
of Compensation awarded by the Court
Loss
of income of the deceased- Rs.5,72,00,550/-
For
Medical treatment in Kolkata and Mumbai- Rs.7,00,000/-
Travel
and Hotel expenses at Mumbai- Rs.6,50,000/-
Loss
of consortium- Rs.1,00,000/-
Pain
and suffering- Rs.10,00,000/-
Cost
of litigation- Rs.11,50,000/-
Total- Rs.6,08,00,550/-
Interest
Rate-
6% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.
To be Continued..... (The next part of this article will be regarding my opinions and comments relating to this judgment.)
To be Continued..... (The next part of this article will be regarding my opinions and comments relating to this judgment.)
Very clear, concise but complete text of this important leading case on awarding compensation due to Medical Negligence.
ReplyDelete