Value Of Human Life Can't Be Assessed In Monetary Terms; Whatsoever Is Awarded Is A Matter Of Solace: SC Dismisses Plea For Enhanced Compensation For Medical Negligence

The Court upheld the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in a medical negligence case concerning the death of a patient during an Endoscopic Polypectomy procedure.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “It was submitted on behalf of the LRs of the deceased patient that the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 were negligent in not conducting proper pre-anesthetic checkup before performing the procedure. Furthermore, it was submitted that the opposite party No. 5, Dr. Rajendra Banthia, who is a general physician, treated the patient without referring her to better medical facility in a timely manner. The submissions put forth by the LRs of the deceased complainant were duly considered by the National Commission, which after considering the material available on record provided for additional compensation to be paid by the opposite parties.”

Advocate Manish Paliwal represented the appellant, while AOR Anand Shankar Jha appeared for the respondents.

A complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) by the husband of a patient who passed away in 2001 following an Endoscopic Polypectomy performed by a doctor (now deceased) and represented by his legal heirs, at his hospital. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest shortly after the procedure and was transferred to other hospitals, where she succumbed to her condition after 19 days of critical care.

The husband alleged that neither did the hospital have a ventilator ventilator facility, nor a pre-anesthetic checkup before performing the procedure. The husband further attributed the negligence to a general physician, accused of failing to refer the patient to a better medical facility on time.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint but directed that the treatment costs be refunded along with compensation for service deficiencies.

The NCDRC later enhanced the compensation, directing the doctors to pay compensation for providing contradictory CT Scan reports. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the NCDRC, an SLP was filed challenging it.

The Supreme Court noted, “As far as petitions filed by the LRs of the deceased complainant are concerned, it is an admitted position that the Endoscopic Polypectomy procedure performed on the deceased patient was successful. It was after the procedure that the patient suffered cardiac arrest, which led her shifting to opposite party No.5, Dr. Rajendra Banthia’s nursing home, and subsequently to opposite party No.6, Dr. Gautam Darda’s hospital, where she eventually died.”

The Bench further remarked, “From the facts as noticed and on a perusal of the orders passed by the different forums, better care of the patient could have been taken but the fact remains that she did not survive. She was 51 years of age at the time of her death. The National Commission has awarded additional compensation of ₹3,00,000/- in lumpsum to be paid by opposite party No. 1 through LRs and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, along with ₹50,000/- each to be paid by opposite party No. 7 and 8, which in our opinion seems to be reasonable and justified, hence, deserves no further enhancement.”

Consequently, the Court held, “We find the reliefs given above are sufficient in S.L.P.(C) Nos.32406-32407 of 2017 and hence no case is made out for grant of leave in the instant petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

Cause Title: D.C. Malviya (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. v. Dr. A.H. Memon (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 786)

Appearance:

AOR Anand Shankar Jha and Anup Jain; Advocates Vikash Kumar, Manish Paliwal, Vidhanshi Kamalia, Abhilekh Tiwari, Meenakshi Devgan, Sahifa Shibli, Parvez Rahman and Sachin Mintri

Click here to read/download the Judgment