Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order directing a group of doctors to pay compensation to the family members of a woman who died due to deficiency in service and lack of better care.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Rajesh Bindal dismissed a plea by the doctors against the order awarding compensation as well as the appeal by the complainant seeking further enhancement of the money to the family of the deceased Sheela Malviya.

"From the facts 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 bench noted.

The National Commission had awarded an additional lump sum compensation of Rs 3,00,000 to be paid by Opposite Party No. 1, Dr. A.H. Memon, as well as Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4, which include Dr. M. Arif Memon, Dr. S. Rathi, Dr. Anil Jain, and Dr. Aarti Gautam Darda. Additionally, Opposite Parties Nos. 7 and 8, Dr. Chandrika Sahu and Dr. Atul Tiwari, were directed to pay Rs 50,000 each. The Commission had found this compensation reasonable and justified.

The Supreme Court also opined that the compensation amount deserved no further enhancement. "The value of human life cannot be assessed in monetary terms whatsoever is awarded is a matter of solace," it, however, said.

A complaint was filed before the District Forum, Raipur Chhattisgarh on August 01, 2003, by DC Malviya, since deceased, seeking compensation of Rs 14,00,000 on account of the death of his wife (late Sheela Malviya). The allegations were of medical negligence. 

Malviya's wife was admitted in the nursing home managed by the deceased respondent No. 1 Dr A H Memon, presently represented by his LRs, for the treatment of Nasal Polyps. On August 17, 2001, an Endoscopic Polypectomy was performed, however, she suffered from cardiac arrest soon after completion of the procedure. 

Since Memon’s hospital did not have a ventilator facility, she was shifted to the opposite party No 5, Dr Rajendra Banthia’s nursing home on the same day. The patient was given treatment for around 19 days at Banthia’s nursing home, however her condition remained critical. On September 06, 2001, she was shifted to opposite party No 6, Dr Gautam Darda’s hospital where the patient expired on September 07, 2001.

The complaint was accepted only qua opposite party No 5 namely Dr Banthia. He was directed to refund the entire treatment charges received by him to the tune of Rs 1,20,000. Additionally, Rs 50,000 was directed to be paid on account of deficiency of service and Rs 2,000 were awarded as legal expenses.

Aggrieved against the order, Malviya and also Dr Banthia against whom compensation was awarded, filed appeals before the State Commission. Both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission on October 12, 2009.

Still dissatisfied, both sides filed a revision petition before the National Commission and in addition to the relief already granted by the District Forum, Opposite Party No. 1 (through legal representatives) and Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to pay a compensation of ₹3,00,000 jointly and severally to the complainant’s legal representatives. Opposite Parties Nos. 7 and 8 were ordered to pay ₹50,000 each due to contradictory CT scan reports. Additionally, all opposite parties, except Opposite Party No. 6, were directed to pay costs of ₹20,000. Dr. Banthia was instructed to pay the compensation previously awarded by the District Forum.

Before the apex court, the complainant (Malviya) sought enhancement of compensation, contending that once the deficiency in service is proved, the compensation had to be assessed by applying the multiplier method. He also argued that the deceased patient being a housewife, her notional income should have been taken for calculation of just and fair compensation. 

The contesting doctors claimed that it was not a case of deficiency in service as they had provided the best medical aid, advice and treatment as per the standard medical protocols but still the patient could not survive.

Examining the matter, the bench said as far as petitions filed by the LRs of the deceased complainant were concerned, it s 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 Banthia’s nursing home, and subsequently to opposite party No 6, Dr Gautam Darda’s hospital, where she eventually died. 

The court pointed out that the National Commission had awarded Rs 3,00,000 jointly and several to be paid by Dr A H Memon, Dr M Arif Memon, Dr S Rathi and Dr Anil Jain towards medical expenses, loss of love and mental agony, Rs 50,000 each on Dr Chandrika Sahu and Dr Atul Tiwari for giving contradictory CT scan report, Rs 20,000 as cost upon all opposite parties except Dr Aarti Gautam Darda, besides refund of cost of treatment by Dr Banthia and Rs 50,000 by him for deficiency in service.

The bench held since the amount involved against the contesting doctors was minimal, it did not find any merit in the present special leave petitions.

Case Title: D C Malviya (Since Deceased) Thr LRs Vs Dr A H Memon (Since Deceased) Thr LRs And Others