Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4126-4127/2022
Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10782-10783/2020
HARNEK SINGH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GURMIT SINGH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the decision of the National Consumer
1
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dismissing the appeal of the
complainant and allowing the appeal of the doctor and the hospital by
holding that no medical negligence was proved. Having examined the
evidence, medical records and the report of the ethics committee of the
2
Medical Council of India , we have concluded that a case of deficiency of
service is made out against the doctor and the hospital, Respondents 1 and
2, herein for medical negligence. Allowing the appeal of the complainants,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2022.05.19
18:34:45 IST
Reason:
1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’.
2 hereinafter referred to as ‘the MCI’.
Page 1 of 21
we have directed payment of compensation. We will first refer to the facts
leading to this case.
Facts :
3. Facts as stated in the complaint filed before State Consumer Disputes
3
Redressal Commission are as follows. Appellant 1, the complainant, is a
retired Semi-Government employee and his wife Late Mrs. Manjit Kaur,
aged 47 years had been working as a Government teacher. Mrs. Manjit
Kaur, the patient, developed abdominal pain for which an ultrasound
examination was done and it revealed the presence of gall bladder stones.
On 13.07.2004 the patient approached Respondent 1, a laparoscopic surgeon
at Preet Surgical Centre & Maternity Hospital, Respondent 2. After due
examinations and medical tests, Respondent recommended surgery for
removing the gall bladder stones and prescribed certain tests to be carried
out in advance.
4. The complainant got the advised investigations done and showed the
results to Respondent 1. He then asked the complainant to get yet another
USG examination from a specific centre as he was not satisfied with the
earlier USG dated 14.7.2004. The complainant complied with this
instruction of Respondent 1 and again medical tests were done from a
specific USG centre on 23.7.2004. Respondent 1 was satisfied with the
results and advised the complainant to get the opinion of a cardiologist as
3 hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCDRC’.
Page 2 of 21
the tests revealed the patient’s blood pressure to be slightly high. On
26.07.2004, Dr. Dharamvira Gandhi, the cardiologist cleared the patient for
surgery.
5. On the morning of 28.07.2004, Respondent 1 performed a laparoscopic
cholecystectomy and placed a drain in the patient’s abdomen. On
29.07.2004, the patient complained of abdominal pain and distension. The
drainage tube was showing a discharge of fluid which was slightly green in
colour, which later on turned greenish-brown. When the complainant
informed Respondent 1 about this, he was told that such fluid was expected
and that is why the tube had been inserted. Respondent 1 also informed the
complainant that he had reviewed the operative CD and assured that there
was no indication of any injury, even in the operative video.
6. On the next day, the patient became very serious and the abdominal
distension and pain was compounded by difficulty in breathing.
Respondent 1 reassured the complainants and started oxygen infusion to the
patient and prescribed some blood tests and ultrasound examination. The
request for a second opinion or referral to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala
attached to Medical College was dismissed by a further assurance that the
patient was in safe hands. Later that evening, Respondent 1 informed the
complainants the cause of the problem was acute pancreatitis and that there
was nothing wrong with the surgery . However, the complainants remained
Page 3 of 21
unconvinced, especially because of the dirty brown discharge coming
through the drain and the persistent pain, distension and breathlessness
which were indicative of some major intestinal or bile duct injury, which the
staff of Respondent 1 had hinted. The complainant again requested
Respondent 1 to seek another opinion or shift the patient to another hospital.
7. At around 9 P.M. on 30.07.2004, Respondent 1 decided to shift the
patient to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Respondent
No. 4 herein and refer the patient to Dr. Atul Mishra, Respondent No. 3
herein. Respondent 1 declined the request by the complainant to give
detailed patient records and operation notes by stating that the patient’s
condition had been adequately explained to Respondent 3. Dr. Punit Gupta
was the doctor on duty when the patient was admitted. As per his
assessment, there was suspicion of an iatrogenic injury to the bile duct and
possibly also to the intestine, during the previous surgery. He advised an
urgent abdomen CT scan to get a clearer picture. A CT scan was done and as
per the report, the small and large intestines were normal. However, it
revealed moderate intra-abdominal and sub-phrenic collection. Respondent
3 examined the patient and the CT scan report the next morning at 9 A.M.
Since the patient was suffering from multiple ailments like pneumonia, high
blood pressure and coagulopathy, immediate surgical intervention was not
advised.
Page 4 of 21
8. On 02.08.2004, the patient’s condition became critical and she showed
signs of colonic perforation. The bilious drain fluid became feculent and
foul-smelling. On 03.08.2004, an emergency laparotomy was performed.
Respondent 3 informed the complainants that there was a large collection of
intestinal contents in the abdomen due to an injury to the colon and in
addition to that there was also a bile duct injury, which would be repaired in
a subsequent surgery. The patient's condition kept deteriorating and she
went into multi-organ failure including failure of the respiratory system,
cardiovascular system and renal failure.
9. The patient died on 11.08.2004.
10. The complainant discussed the cause of death and the need for autopsy
with Respondent 3, however, he was told that the patient died due to intra-
operative injuries to the colon and bile duct resulting in Peritonitis,
Peritoneal Collection, Septicaemia and Multi-Organ failure.
Proceedings before the State Commission :
11. It is in the above-referred circumstances that the complainant filed a
consumer complaint before the SCDRC, Punjab on 14.02.2005, which was
subsequently transferred to State Consumer Commission, U.T. Chandigarh.
The complainant prayed for monetary compensation quantified at
Rs. 62,85,160 from the Respondents for negligence and deficiency of
services.
Page 5 of 21
12. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a reply stating that Respondent 1 is an
experienced surgeon and has performed more than 2,500 laparoscopic
operations successfully. It was explained that the patient's surgery was
performed with proper care, but after the surgery, she developed epigastrial
pain and slight distension in the abdomen. Immediately conservative
treatment was started and the patient got some relief from the same.
However, on the night of 30.07.2004, the patient's condition got critical, as
a result of which she was referred to Respondent 4 hospital to be treated by
Respondent 3.
13. Respondents 3 and 4 in their reply denied the allegations of negligence
and stated that the hospital provided due and proper care to the patient. It
was further stated that most of the iatrogenic injuries to the bile duct during
the cholecystectomy were not recognised in the operating room but were
detected after a few days as biliary fistula or bile peritonitis. It was stated
that the initial response of Respondent 3 was to not operate immediately as
it was decided to evaluate the nature of the leak and attempt to control the
fistula. Also, conducting the operation earlier was not medically advised.
The operation was conducted on 03.08.2004 to tackle perforation in the
large bowel.
14. A reply was also filed by Dr. Dharamvir Gandhi, the cardiologist who
stated that the patient was 47 years old and was referred to him by
Page 6 of 21
Respondent 1. It was found that she was a patient of hypothyroidism and
was taking treatment for the same for the last three years. She complained
of chest pain and breathlessness for which she was treated with due care.
Her cardiovascular status was stable.
15. Both Respondents 1 and 3 were duly cross-examined by counsel of the
complainant on 06.07.2006. The complaint also cross-examined Dr. Inderjit
Singh and Dr. Navdeep Singh as experts before the SCDRC.
16. The SCDRC after considering the evidence and hearing both the
parties, allowed the complaint and held Respondents 1 and 2 negligent and
exonerated Respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to pay
Rs. 15,44,000 jointly and severally and Rs. 10,000 as costs.
17. The SCDRC found that the CT scan which was performed on
31.07.2004 showed pneumo peritoneum which meant a significant amount
of free air in the abdomen outside the intestines was present which is not
normally present. During laparoscopic surgery, gas is introduced into the
peritoneal cavity and all the gas does not get removed at the end of the
surgery. It is a known fact that this residual gas gets absorbed and does not
stay in the abdomen for more than 24 hours. The only other area from where
the gas can enter the peritoneal cavity is the intestines if they are ruptured at
any place. The CT scan was performed three days after the laparoscopic
surgery and significant air was present even after three days which is a clear
Page 7 of 21
sign of an intestinal injury. There was also some subphrenic abscess found
below the diaphragm which has to be removed, otherwise, diaphragm
movements cannot be restored. SCDRC found that it was the direct
consequence of the intra-operative injury to the bile duct and colon caused
by Respondent 1 during the laparoscopic cholecystectomy that later led to
the death of the patient. With respect to Respondent 3, the only allegation
was a delay in operating on the patient. SCDRC found that Respondent 3
could not detect any important sign of bowel perforation on 31.07.2004 or
01.08.2004 and therefore he decided against any surgical intervention at that
point of time and hence there was no negligence on the part of Respondent
3.
18. The complainants filed an appeal before the NCDRC. Simultaneously
Respondents 1 and 2 also filed an appeal for dismissal of the Complaint.
Proceedings before the MCI :
19. It is necessary to mention at this stage that while the proceedings were
pending before the SCDRC, the complainants also made a complaint to the
Punjab State Medical Council against the professional misconduct of the
Respondents, which was summarily disposed of on 13.06.2006. The
complainants filed an appeal to the MCI. The MCI considered the appeal of
the complainant and asked Respondents 1 and 3 to appear before the Ethics
Committee. Both the Respondents submitted their detailed replies. The
Page 8 of 21
Ethics Committee considered the matter and held Respondent 1 medically
negligent and issued a strict warning to be more careful during the
procedure and to be more diligent in treating and monitoring his patients
during and after the operation . Respondent 3 was exonerated as no medical
negligence was proved against him.
Proceedings before the NCDRC :
20. Coming back to the appeal before NCDRC, it heard both the appeals
together, i.e. the appeal filed by the complainants as well as Respondents 1
and 2. The NCDRC observed that the patient was operated on by
Respondent 1 on 28.07.2004 and the injuries were detected after six days.
The CT scan report of 31.07.2004 ruled out any evidence of injury or
perforation peritonitis and therefore Respondent 1 did not ignore any signs
of biliary and fecal peritonitis. Further, the complainant relied on the
paramedic staff of the Respondent 2 hospital who informed him about the
operative injury, it was held that there was no evidence in this regard. There
was no negligence found on the part of Respondents 1 and 2.
21. In the case of Respondents 3 and 4, it was found that the patient was
not fit for diagnostic laparoscopy immediately since there were no signs of
any obstructive lesion or proximal dilation. On 02.08.2004, there was a
sudden deterioration in the patient's general condition and she was then
diagnosed with bowel leak with peritonitis. She was operated on 03.08.2004
Page 9 of 21
to repair the colonic perforation. The patient’s condition started weakening
and she died on 11.08.2004 due to cardiac arrest. It was held that
Respondents 3 and 4 acted with due care and hence there was no
negligence.
22. The NCDRC by way of the impugned decision on 05.06.2020 allowed
the appeal of Respondents 1 and 2 and set aside the order of the SCDRC
holding that negligence was not proved by the complainants. It is from this
decision that the present appeals arise.
Submissions :
23. In these appeals, we have heard Mr. Raj Kiran Talwar learned advocate
for the Appellants and Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Ms. Suruchi Suri and
Mr. Anuj Chauhan, learned advocates for the Respondents.
24. Mr. Raj Kiran Talwar, learned advocate for the Appellants made the
following submissions. At the outset, he would submit, that the patient
suffered two iatrogenic injuries during her first surgery, one to the colon and
the other to the bile duct. From these two injuries, fluids from the bile
started to accumulate in the peritoneal cavity of the patient while the
overflowing fluid started to come out of the drain. Secondly, after the
patient became critical, Respondent 1 referred the patient to Respondents 3
and 4 at Ludhiana which is at a distance of 100 KMs instead of a local
hospital at a nearer distance. Thirdly, strong reliance was placed on the
Page 10 of 21
statement of
Respondent 1 in his cross, where he categorically stated that it did not occur
to his mind that the injuries could take place. Fourthly, Respondent 3
negligently delayed the re-exploration surgery even after receiving the CT
scan report. Finally, the NCDRC gave its decision without referring to the
MCI findings. In support of his submission, he relied on a judgment of this
Court in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and Ors. v. Master Rishabh Sharma
4
and Ors.
25. On the other hand, Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing
for Respondents 1 and 2 made the following submissions. The presence of a
biliary leak does not signify injury of a bile duct as it can occur from the
liver bed from the cholecycto-hepatic duct, slippage of a clip from cystic
duct stump which are not injuries. Second, for there to be a presence of a
leakage from the large intestine, there are some specific symptoms which
were not shown and therefore leakage of the colon was ruled out. Finally,
since there was no bile duct or colon injury, the presence of rent in the
hepatic flexure of the colon may be either a result of delayed manifestation
due to thermal injury because of the electro-cautery, or it may be a rare case
of injury to the hepatic flexure of the colon because of the drainage tube.
26. Ms. Suruchi Suri, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4
submitted that, the only allegation is of the delay in diagnosis of colonic
4 Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and Ors. v. Master Rishabh Sharma and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 501.
Page 11 of 21
perforation and corrective surgery. This according to her is proved incorrect
as per the findings of the MCI, SCDRC and the NCDRC as well. Second,
the surgery was performed diligently and with due care. The bile leak
coming out of the drain after the gall bladder surgery had occurred during
the first surgery performed by Respondent 1. The patient was already
critical when she was admitted to Respondent 4 hospital and therefore
immediate surgical intervention was not called for. However, when the fecal
matter leak was found in the drain, the patient was immediately operated on.
Analysis :
27. The primary question is whether the complainant has established
professional negligence on the part of Respondents as per the standards
governing the duty to care of a medical practitioner. The SCDRC in its
detailed decision considered the oral and documentary evidence including
medical journals and concluded that Respondents 1 and 2 acted negligently
in performing the operation. SCDRC also held that there is no evidence of
negligence in so far as Respondents 3 and 4 are concerned.
28. What we have noticed in the impugned decision of the NCDRC is that
a substantive part of the decision refers only to judicial precedents on the
question of medical negligence. Reference is made to the decisions in the
case of Kusum Sharma & Others v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research
Page 12 of 21
5 6
Centre and others ; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab ; Achutrao Haribhau
7
Khodwa and others v. State of Maharashtra and others ; and S.K.
8
Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur . Apart from the case laws on facts, the
NCDRC devoted its attention substantially to the allegations against
Respondent 3 who was anyway exonerated by the SCDRC. In so far as
Respondent 1 is concerned, the NCDRC did not meet the specific
allegations of negligence in the performance of the surgery.
29. There was sufficient material indicative of large bowel perforation after
the laparoscopic operation. It is true that it may not have manifested
immediately in the normal course. However, there were sufficient indicators
to a diligent professional, to detect and take immediate steps for restitution.
Instead of examining the material that was placed on record, NCDRC
seemed satisfied with raising and rejecting the plea of res ipsa loquitur and
holding that it is impermissible to assume that any sensible professional
would intentionally commit an act which would result in an injury to the
patient. In these proceedings for damages due to professional negligence,
the question of intention does not arise. Unfortunately, the NCDRC did not
even refer to the report of the MCI. In fact, a reference to the MCI report
would have been sufficient to come to the right conclusion.
5 Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors. , (2010) 3 SCC 480.
6 Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1.
7 Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Others v. State of Maharashtra and others (1996) 2 SCC 634.
8 S .K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur & Anr. (2019) 2 SCC 282.
Page 13 of 21
30. The MCI examined the matter in the context of an appeal filed by the
complainants against the decision of the Punjab Medical Council dated
13.6.2006. MCI referred the appeal filed by the complainant to the Ethics
Committee. The Committee recorded the statement of the complainant, and
the doctors Respondents 1 and 3. The Ethics Committee also sought the
opinion of Experts on the conduct of these Respondents. The two Experts
were Professors and HODs of AIIMS, New Delhi and KGMC, Lucknow. We
will now refer to each of their opinions.
31. In the opinion of Professor and HOD, Department of Surgery, AIIMS,
extracted in the MCI report is as under:
“The findings at laparotomy confirmed it to be a case of
large bowel perforation, which could be iatrogenic,
related to the laparoscopic procedure . Appropriate
surgical intervention was done on a by now very sick
patient. Patient died on 11.8.2004.
Comment: It appears on the basis of available records
that the diagnosis and operative intervention for
generalised peritonitis as a result of bowel perforation
was significantly delayed first at the local hospital and
subsequently at DMC Ludhiana and lead to the
unfavourable outcome.”
32. In the opinion of Professor and HOD, Surgery, KGMC Lucknow,
extracted in the MCI report is as under:
“In case of Dr. Gurmit Singh also, as per records it
appears that he is not negligent his duties towards Mrs.
Manjeet Kaur during her stay in his hospital and has
given care to best of his proficiency and available
facilities. However, following relevant observations are
made: -
Page 14 of 21
1. Pre-operative clearance from Cardiologist was taken.
2. Pre-operative correction of anaemia by three unit of
blood done.
3. Pre-operative consent paper has been signed which
mentions the possibility of fatality and likelihood of
complication.
4. Post-operative second opinion was taken by Dr.
Gurmit Singh.
5. Records of Preet Hospitals are present in document
sent by you, but recorded CD of Surgery is not
available.
6. In his statement of complaint, he mentions that both
Dr. Gurmit Singh and Dr. Atul Mishra are qualified
medical professionals.
7. Shifting of patient was done in distant hospital where
better GI and ventilatory facilities are claimed.
However, availability of these facilities in local city is
matter of survey, which should be sought for.
8. Minor bile leak during surgery is accepted by Dr.
Gurmit Singh, which kept on increasing in post-
operative period.
9. Bowel perforation and bile duct injuries were noted in
surgery done by Dr. Atul Mishra at Ludhiana.”
33. After considering the material on record as well as the opinions of the
Professors as indicated above, MCI concluded as under:-
“In addition to that the Ethics Committee has decided to
request Prof. & HOD of Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi and
Prof. & HOD of Surgery, KGMC, Lucknow to kindly
assist the Ethics Committee by going through all the
records of the case and give their opinion regarding this
matter. Accordingly, Prof. & HOD of Surgery, AIIMS,
New Delhi has given his opinion in writing and also
Prof. & HOD, KGMC, Lucknow has sent his opinion.
The Ethics Committee after perusal of all the above
documents have come to the conclusion that –
Page 15 of 21
1. In the case of Dr. Atul Mishra, no case of medical
negligence can be established against him. Therefore,
the Ethics Committee decided to drop the matter
against Dr. Atul Mishra and exonerate him from the
charges.
2. Ethics Committee found that Dr. Gurmit Singh has
failed to exercise adequate medical competence in
treating the patient as is apparent from the following
points: -
(a)There was a large bowel perforation after the
laparoscopic operation. This complication which
though not known in the normal course of time,
had occurred in this particular case. This
complication could have been prevented if care
had been exercised during the procedure by Dr.
Gurmit Singh.
(b)More important Dr. Gurmit has failed to suspect
the occurrence of complications despite following
warning, signs/symptoms-
i)the patient not recovering after the operation.
ii)the patient increasingly deteriorating.
iii)there was a strong indication of a complication
occurring after the procedure. Thereafter, his
failure to detect all these conditions led to delay in
diagnosis all perforation of the bowel and has to
lead a situation of avoidable delay which causes
increased deterioration of the patient.”
34. In view of the clear findings, the MCI decided to issue a strict warning
to Respondent 1 to be more careful during the procedure and to be more
diligent in treating and monitoring his patients during and after the
operation. As against Respondent 3, the MCI dropped the case and
exonerated him.
35. So far as present proceedings are concerned, as they arise out of a claim
for compensation on the basis of medical negligence, the opinion and
Page 16 of 21
findings of the MCI regarding the professional conduct of Respondent 1
have great relevance. The findings of the Medical Council, which is a
statutory regulator have been extracted hereinabove, may be formulated as
under:
1. Existence of Generalized peritonitis as a result of bowel
perforation. (per the opinion of Professor & HOD, Department of
Surgery, AIIMS) .
2. There was a significant delay in its diagnosis and operative
intervention, first at the local hospital and subsequently at DMC,
Ludhiana. (per the opinion of Professor & HOD, Department of
Surgery, AIIMS).
3. This has led to the unfavourable outcome. (per the opinion of
Professor & HOD, Department of Surgery, AIIMS).
4. Shifting of the patient by Respondent 1 was done in a distant
hospital where better GI and ventilatory facilities are claimed.
However, the availability of these facilities in the local city is a
matter of survey, which should be sought for. (per the opinion of
Professor & HOD, Department of Surgery, KGMC, Lucknow).
5. Minor bile leak during surgery is accepted by Dr. Gurmit Singh.
This kept on increasing in the post-operative period. Bowel
perforation and bile duct injuries were noted in surgery done by
Dr. Atul Mishra at Ludhiana. (per the opinion of Professor &
HOD, Department of Surgery, KGMC, Lucknow).
6. Dr. Gurmit Singh has failed to exercise adequate medical
competence in treating the patient as is apparent from the facts.
(Experts Common Opinion)
7. There was a large bowel perforation after the laparoscopic
operation. (Experts Common Opinion)
Page 17 of 21
8. The complication which though not known in the normal course of
time, had occurred in this particular case. This complication could
have been prevented if care had been exercised during the
procedure by Dr. Gurmit Singh. (Experts Common Opinion)
9. Dr. Gurmit Singh failed to suspect the occurrence of the
complication despite warning signs/symptoms. (Experts Common
Opinion)
10. Dr. Gurmit Singh ignored the following factors namely,
(a) the patient was not recovering after the operation,
(b) the patient’s condition was increasingly deteriorating, and
(c) there was a strong indication of a complication occurring after
the procedure. (Experts Common Opinion)
11. Failure of Dr. Gurmit Singh to detect the warning signs/symptom
led to a delay in diagnosis of bowel perforation and this has, in
turn, led to a situation of avoidable delay which eventually cause
increased deterioration of the patient . (Experts Common Opinion)
36. The above-referred findings of the MCI on the conduct of Respondent
1 leave no doubt in our mind that this is certainly a case of medical
negligence leading to deficiency in his services. NCDRC, except referring to
the general principles of law as laid down in the judgments of this Court has
not attempted to draw its conclusion from the oral and documentary
evidence available on record.
37. Apart from the facts that clearly emerge from the report of the MCI,
there is sufficient evidence to reiterate the same findings of deficiency. In
the oral evidence, the following answers were elicited from Respondent 1 in
the cross-examination which fortify the report given by the MCI.
Page 18 of 21
Q) Did you consider during your investigation that there
was possible intra-operative injury to bile duct or
intestines?
A) No it did not occur to my mind. In-fact there was no
such injury while the patient was in my hospital.
Q) Did you think it necessary to take
opinion/consultation of another Surgeon?
A) I did not think it necessary in the circumstances of
this case to consult another surgeon.
Q) Why did you consider it proper to refer the patient to
another Surgeon instead of a Chest Specialist as
according to your opinion, the patient was not having
any surgical problem but was having chest problem.
A) The patient was referred to a Surgeon because we
wanted to know that why the abdomen pain has
developed as also why there was excessive discharge
from the drain.”
38. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the
NCDRC has committed an error in reversing the findings of the SCDRC and
not adverting to the evidence on record including the report of the MCI. The
decision of the NCDRC deserves to be set aside and we hold that the
complainants have made out a case of medical negligence against
Respondents 1 and 2 and are entitled to seek compensation on the ground of
deficiency of service.
39. The State Commission as well as the National Commission and even
the MCI have not found Respondents 3 and 4 negligent in performing their
services, and we are in agreement with such findings and therefore, confine
Page 19 of 21
our conclusion and directions to Respondents 1 and 2. To this extent, we
reject the appeal of the complainant against all except Respondents 1 and 2.
40. In view of the findings as indicated above we are of the opinion that
the appeal filed by the complainants deserves to be allowed. The
complainants had claimed an amount of Rs. 62,85,160/- on various counts
such as amounts paid to the doctors and the hospitals for treatment, loss of
income of the patient who was a Government servant with the salary of Rs.
37,150 per month with 10 years remaining service, damages for trauma and
shock and on certain other grounds. Having considered the matter in detail,
we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if
Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainants a total amount
of Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of SCDRC order as compensation. Respondents 1 and
2 will be entitled to adjust any amount already paid or deposited in favour
of the complainants pending proceedings. The amount shall be deposited
within a period of 6 months from today, failing which it shall carry an
interest of 9% per annum.
Page 20 of 21
41. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed and the
judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in Appeal No. 108/2008 and Appeal No. 120/2008 is hereby set aside.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
……………………………….J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
……………………………….J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
……………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 18, 2022
Page 21 of 21