NERVOUS SHOCK-

In English law, a nervous Shock is a psychiatric illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or
negligent actions or omissions of another. Often, it is a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing an
accident. For example, an injury caused to one’s spouse or parents.

Damages for mental suffering and psychiatric injury or nervous Shock-

Primary victims are those who are participants in the event or in other words are in the actual area of
danger of receiving foreseeable personal injury but suffer only a recognisable psychiatric illness and
escape personal injury by chance or good fortune.

They are entitled to receive compensation for mental suffering which amounts to a recognisable
psychiatric illness even if psychiatric illness was not foreseeable.

Secondary victims are those who are not participants in the event in order words, are not in area of
danger of receiving foreseeable personal injury but yet suffer recognisable psychiatric illness.

 A plaintiff falling in the category of secondary victim is allowed damages under 'control
mechanism'
1. Plaintiff must have close ties of love and affection with the main victim. Such ties maybe
presumed in some cases but must otherwise to be established by evidence.
2. Plaintiff must have been present at the accident or its immediate aftermath.
3. Psychiatric injury just have been caused by direct perception of the accident or its
immediate aftermath and not upon hearing about it from someone else.

Case: white v chief constable of South Yorkshire

In this case, the claimants were a number of police officers who were on duty at that time at the
stadium and who suffered post traumatic stress disorder, a recognised psychiatric illness while engaged
in the rescue work in the aftermath of the disaster.

The plaintiff’s were not within range of foreseeable physical injury but they claimed that they should be
treated as primary victims merely because they were employees of tort feasor and the nervous Shock
was suffered in the course of employment. They also claimed special treatment as primary victims in the
ground that they were rescuers.

The plaitniff’s claim were rejected on the ground that they didn’t satisfy the test of being a primary
vixtim as they were not in the range of foreseeable personal injury and the fact that they were
employees of tort feasor or the fact that they were rescuers did not enable them to claim as primary
victims.

These which are reaffirmed in White's. Case have their origin in

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police –

16 people who didn’t receive any physical injury but suffered psychiatric injury claimed damages against
the chief constable. The plaintiffs were relatives or friends of the persons killed or injured in the disaster.
Some of the plaintiffs were in the stadium at the time of disaster but not in the area where disaster
occurred.

They alleged to have suffered mental shock caused by seeing or hearing news of the disaster.

One of the plaintiff’s, Mr. H, who was present elsewhere in the stadium and whose two brothers died
failed to satisfy conditions no.1 of control.mevhanism because the court refused to presume existence
of close ties of love and affection between brothers and no evidence has led to prove that they existed
in this case.

Two of the plaintiffs Mr & Mrs C, whose son died failed to satisfy condition no 2 because they were not
present in the stadium and saw the scenes on television.

One of the plaitniff’s Mr A, who identified his brother in law in the mortuary at mid night failed to
consider no 3 because he was not in time for immediate aftermath of the tragedy. The claims of ithers
were dismissed on similar grounds.

Indian courts have been more generous in awarding damages for mental suffering.

Case: lucknow development authority v MK Gupta

Damages for mental aging in a case of harassment of the plaintiff by the officers of a public authority
were allowed under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 by the SC.

Mehmood Nayyar Azaam v State of Chandigarh

Compensation was awarded to a person for undergoing unwarranted mental torture at the hands of
police officers while in custody.

Spring Meadows Hospital v Harjot Ahluwalia

Damages for mental agony were also allowed to parents when their child because of the negligence of
the hospital, where he was taken for treatment suffered severe damage due to negligence of the
hospital staff and was left in a vegetative state. The child was separately allowed damages in the same
case.

Jose Philip Mampillil v Premier Automobiles Ltd.

Damages for mental agony were allowed under the Consumer Protection Act when a defective car was
delivered to the purchaser who was held entitled to Rs 40000 as damages for mental agony in addition
to the cost of repair of the car.

The Appellant had placed an order for purchase of a Premier Diesel Car manufactured by the 1 st
Respondent. The full price was paid by the Appellant. The 2 nd respondent was the dealer of the car he
found Kottayam. When the Appellant went for the delivery of the car he found defects in the paint of
the car. He therefore complained to the 2 nd respondent. 2nd respondent promises to rectify the defects
and called him again after some days. The Appellant went after some days. He found that the defects
had not been cured. Therefore, he wasn’t to take delivery of the car. However, he persuaded to take
delivery on assurance that all defects would be cured. At this stage, it was alos noticed that piston rings
of the engine were defective and there was heavy leakage of oil. Thereafter, the car was repeatedly sent
to the dealer for repairs. Each time it was returned claiming that the defects had been cured. However,
in case, the defects were not cured.

Halligua v Mohansundaram

The Madras HC has held that the theory that damages at law could not be proved in respect of personal
injuries unless there was some injury which was variously called Bodily and physical but which
necessarily excluded which was only 'mental' is wrong.

The body is controlled by its nervous system and if by reason of an acute shock to the nervous system
the activities of the body are impaired and it is incapacitated from functioning normally then there is
clear bodily injury. And an insurance company cannot seek to evade liability for damages for such
nervous Shock on the strength of a clause in the policy which makes the company legally liable to pay in
respect of death or “bodily injury” to any person. It is shock of such description which can be measured
by direct consequences on bodily activity which can form the basis for an action in damages.