Sakshi-BHU

Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha and Ors

Citation- AIR 2013 SC 962
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, S.J Mukhopa dhaya, JJ
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2867 OF 2012

With

CIVIL APPEAL No.692 of 2012, CIVIL APPEAL No.2866 of 2012, CIVIL APPEAL No.731 of 2012, CIVIL
APPEAL No.858 of 2012.

FACTS
The claimant Kunal Saha’s wife Anuradha Saha died of skin disease under the care of the
Appellant in AMRI hospital. The claimant filed a case of medical negligence, against the
negligent doctor and hospital before the National Consumer Redressal Commission
(NCDRDC), but NDRDC dismissed the case on grounds that there was no negligence by the
doctors. But later supreme court held that the doctors are guilty of medical negligence and the
case got again referred to NCDRC for the sole purpose of determining the quantum of
compensation. Then NCRDC awarded Rs. 1.73 lakh of compensation. However on finding
the amount of compensation too excessive they , aggrieved by the decision filled the civil
appeal nos 2867 , 731,858 of 2012. The claimant also , proclaiming that the amount of
compensation is inadequate as his wife was a child phycologist in U.S. and would earn
$30,000 filled another appeal , civil appeal no. 2866 of 2012. Hence the present case.

ISSUES

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?

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?

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?

6.)Whether the claimant is entitled to the interest on the compensation that would be awarded?

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?

OBSERVATION

The court observed The claim for enhancement of compensation by the claimant in his appeal is
justified for the following reasons .And that we are of the view that the claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation under certain items made by the claimant in additional claim preferred by
him before the National Commission .

Court stated that it is an undisputed fact that the victim was a graduate in psychology from a highly
prestigious Ivy League school in New York. She had a brilliant future ahead of her. And the National
Commission has committed grave error in taking that figure to determine compensation under the
head of loss of dependency.

It was overserved that the case is of non–pecuniary damages as the gratuitous service rendered by the
wife or mother with true love, care and affection cannot even be replaced by the maid or the
grandmother. However, for the purpose of awarding compensation, some pecuniary estimation has to
be made. Halsbury’s Law of England was quoted.

The judgement made by the court was to hold the right to health as a fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21

It was stated that the claim of Rs 4,50,00,000/- is excessive under the head for pain and suffering
endured by the deceased during her treatment. As it goes against the amount awarded by this Court
under this head in the earlier cases. The court found that the matter of emotional distress does not
relate to the medical negligence caused here hence no compensation was awarded under this head.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009 absolved the doctors and the hospitals of criminal liability for
medical negligence, however, held them culpable of civil liabilities.

JUDGEMENT

The hon’ble court directed the central and the state governments that they may consider
enacting laws wherever there is absence of one for effective functioning of the private
Hospitals and Nursing Homes. the Civil Appeal No. 2867/201, Civil Appeal No. 858/2012
and Civil Appeal No. 731/2012 were partly allowed by modifying the judgment and order of
the National Commission. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. Baidyanath Haldar were held
liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs each and Dr. Balram Prasad was held
liable to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimant. Because of paying the compensation
in excess of what they were made liable for return from appellant-AMRI Hospital within 8
weeks. A total amount of Rs.6,08,00,550/- as compensation was awarded in this appeal to the
claimant Dr. Kunal Saha under different heads with 6% interest per annum from the date of
application till the date of payment.