2025 (4) TMI 1177 - SCH - Indian Laws

Vicariously liability of Hospital (Appellant) and the doctor (Respondent No. 2) for medical negligence resulting in the death of the complainant s son - challenge is on the ground that the liability as has been imposed upon the Appellant and the proforma Respondent No.2 on the ground of negligence without there being any medical literature or evidence of any expert substantiating the said findings deserve to be set aside - HELD THAT - It is apparent that there is ample evidences as well as records to indicate that there was indeed medical negligence at the end of the Appellant and Respondent no.2. Quantum of compensation as has been assessed and awarded by the NCDRC - HELD THAT - As is apparent from the pleadings the son of the complainant was 27 years of age at the time of his death which is the prime age when a person starts his career and has his whole life to look forward to. Considering that the individual was a B.Tech graduate and he was working in a soap factory albeit drawing a modest salary. In the beginning when youngsters start their career generally humble short steps are taken. It is evident that he was financially supporting the family and had the qualification and potentiality for earning higher income in future. Therefore it cannot be said that the compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is without any basis or the quantum is on extremely higher side. As a matter of fact the NCDRC has fixed the compensation at Rs.5 lakhs to be paid by Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar proforma Respondent no.2 who has accepted the said judgment and has even deposited the said amount. As regards the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is concerned which is assessed to be paid as compensation by the Appellant it would not be out of way to mention here that while issuing notice in the present case this Court had directed the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the Registry of this Court to be invested in short term fixed deposit to be renewed from time to time - the amount of Rs.10 lakhs as stands deposited in this Court by the Appellant along with the accrued interest thereon would serve the interest of justice and the said amount of compensation would suffice as far as the liability of the appellant hospital is concerned. Conclusion - Considering that the individual was a B.Tech graduate and he was working in a soap factory albeit drawing a modest salary the compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is fully justified calling for no interference by this Court. The decision of the NCDRC is upheld however the amount of compensation with regard to the liability of the appellant hospital would stand at Rs.10 lakhs along with accrued interest. The amount so deposited be disbursed to Respondent no.1 the complainant on an application to be submitted to the concerned Registrar of this Court - appeal disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the Hospital (Appellant) and the doctor (Respondent No. 2) could be held vicariously liable for medical negligence resulting in the death of the complainant's son.

(b) Whether the findings of medical negligence by the National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (APSCDRC) were supported by sufficient medical evidence and expert opinion.

(c) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the NCDRC-Rs. 20 lakhs in total (Rs. 15 lakhs against the Hospital and Rs. 5 lakhs against the doctor)-was justified and proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Liability of the Hospital and Doctor for Medical Negligence

The legal framework governing medical negligence requires proof that the medical professionals failed to exercise the degree of care and skill expected of a reasonably competent practitioner under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to the patient. The principle of vicarious liability holds the hospital responsible for the acts of its doctors and staff if negligence is established.

The Appellant argued that the hospital and its doctors had adhered to the requisite standard of care, supported by medical literature and records, and that no expert evidence substantiated the claim of negligence. It was contended that the procedures followed were in accordance with accepted medical standards and that requisite permissions were duly obtained from the patient's attendants.

The Court examined the medical records and evidence on record, including the pleadings and expert opinions presented before the consumer fora. The Respondent supported the findings of negligence, emphasizing that the hospital and doctor failed to provide the appropriate standard of care, leading to the death of the patient.

The Court found that ample evidence and records indicated medical negligence by the hospital and the doctor. The findings of the APSCDRC and NCDRC were based on a thorough examination of the medical facts and were not arbitrary or unsupported by evidence. The Court affirmed these findings, holding that both the hospital and the doctor were liable for the negligence resulting in the death.

(b) Sufficiency of Medical Evidence and Expert Opinion

The Appellant challenged the findings on the ground that there was no medical literature or expert evidence substantiating the negligence. It was argued that the medical procedures were standard and that the doctors exercised due care and caution.

The Court noted that the medical literature placed on record by the Appellant supported the procedures followed, but the ultimate question was whether the treatment met the standard expected in the circumstances. The Court observed that the consumer fora had considered all medical evidence, including expert opinions, and had found negligence based on the facts.

The Court did not find any infirmity in the approach of the consumer fora in evaluating the medical evidence. It held that the findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and medical records, and therefore, deserved to be upheld.

(c) Quantum of Compensation

The Appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the NCDRC was excessive and not supported by evidence or documents. The Respondent argued that the compensation was justified considering the deceased was a 27-year-old B.Tech graduate employed in a soap factory, supporting his family and having the potential for future earnings.

The Court considered the age, qualifications, and employment status of the deceased. It recognized that at 27 years, the deceased was in the prime of his life with a promising career ahead, and the compensation should reflect the loss of future earnings and support to the family.

While the NCDRC awarded Rs. 5 lakhs against the doctor and Rs. 15 lakhs against the hospital, the Court noted that the doctor had accepted and deposited the Rs. 5 lakhs. Regarding the hospital's liability, the Court referred to its earlier direction requiring the hospital to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs in the Court Registry, which had accrued interest over time.

The Court concluded that the deposited amount of Rs. 10 lakhs with accrued interest would adequately serve the interests of justice as compensation from the hospital. Consequently, the Court modified the quantum of compensation payable by the hospital from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs plus interest, while upholding the total liability.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"There is ample evidence as well as records to indicate that there was indeed medical negligence at the end of the Appellant and Respondent no.2."

"The findings thus returned by the APSCDRC and NCDRC in this regard cannot be invalidated and are affirmed."

Regarding compensation, the Court stated:

"Considering that the individual was a B.Tech graduate and he was working in a soap factory, albeit drawing a modest salary... the compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is fully justified calling for no interference by this Court."

On the modification of compensation payable by the hospital, the Court observed:

"The amount of Rs.10 lakhs as stands deposited in this Court by the Appellant along with the accrued interest thereon would serve the interest of justice and the said amount of compensation would suffice as far as the liability of the appellant hospital is concerned."

The Court upheld the decision of the NCDRC on liability but modified the compensation amount payable by the hospital to Rs. 10 lakhs plus interest, directing disbursement to the complainant upon application.

← Previous Next →