Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The case dates back to the last century, when in 1991, Ashok Iron Works, a
private company that manufactures iron applied for obtaining electricity
from the state’s power generation company – the Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation (hereinafter KTPC) for commencing its iron
production. However, despite paying charges and obtaining confirmation
for the supply of 1500 KVA energy in February 1991, the actual supply did
not begin until ten months later, in November 1991. This delay led to
incurring of losses by the private company. This prompted a complaint to
the Belgaum Consumer Dispute Forum and later Karnataka High Court,
under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the delay in supply of
electricity.
Thus, the court allowed the complaint on the two grounds that the
applicant – Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, can sue as a person, and
that supply of electricity, if found deficient can be a fit ground for claiming
compensation. The Supreme Court sent the case back to District Forum
for retrial on these grounds.
The cases arise as a writ petition was filed by the Indian Medical
Association seeking the Supreme Court to declare that the Consumer
Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) doesn’t apply to the medical profession.
Can a student seek a refund of fees paid to a coaching class for the
remaining period of classes that are yet to be held?
In case of a refusal to refund fee, can a claim for mental agony for
pressing legal charges to be sought?
While holding the doctors of NIMS liable, the court considers the
following – compensation for i) present burden of medical
expenses, ii) prospective burden of expenses, iii) loss of future
earnings, iv) pain, suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
and shortening of life expectancy and v) damages/compensation
for father, mother, brother and maternal uncle of the patient who
will now be wheelchair-bound for the rest of his life.
Under multiple heads cumulatively, the court awarded damages
worth ₹ 1 crore. However, the court also rejected some amounts
claimed by the patient as unjust – such as ₹2 crores in a deposit
form, to be withdrawn if a future medical development allows his
condition to improve.
The Supreme Court mentions that the award of compensation is a
balance between many parties and interests, and sympathy for the
patient must not come in way of awarding a fair and adequate
compensation.
Whether a petitioner can still approach the court for a deficiency in service
after nine years and would it be barred by limitation?
Principles applied by the court:
When can a court accept the consumer case – The court lists that the
matter must satisfy certain essentials. The petitioner should fall within the
definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in the act and there must be a ‘defect’
or ‘deficiency in service’, and the complaint should have been filed within
the prescribed period of limitation, only then it can direct that the
complaint may be proceeded with.
The Court while highlighting the Discovery Rule categorically says that it is
not applicable in the present case due to the below-mentioned reasons.
⁃ Can parents of the child, being the consumer, approach the court for
availing compensation?
⁃ Can the court award compensation to the parents for mental agony?
Arguments by the nurse and the hospital
⁃ The solution of the injection administered was already being given in the
oral form, hence the nurse did not do any test for injection.
⁃ The nurse did not exercise independent decision, was only acting as per
directions of the pediatrician.
⁃ The hospital also sought refuge in the fact that after the child was
declared vegetative by AIIMS, they volunteered to offer medical services
without charge to the parents.
The court while making a case for gross negligence quashed these
arguments and held the hospital responsible, for the medical college of
the nurse had no affiliation, the injection overdose had led to the child’s
brain damage and there was no resident doctor present.
The state commission in its order held the state responsible, for DDA is a
government entity. It directed DDA to allot an alternative plot of the same
kind or pay the escalated price of ₹30 lacs. The DDA relies on a frivolous
argument that the case is liable to be dismissed since the respondent did
not pay the instalment and therefore, his application stood rejected.
Whereas, in reality, the allotted plot number has already been assigned to
someone back in 1995 and the DDA took no steps to correct its own error
in the allotment.