National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: In two first appeals filed under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by both the parties against order dated 4-11-2016 passed by Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘TSCDRC’), Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member modified the said order a bit while concurring with the findings of TSCDRC regarding vicarious liability of the hospital and quantum of compensation fixed by the Commission.
While the opposite parties before TSCDRC prayed for setting aside the impugned order, the original complainants prayed for enhancement of compensation granted by TSCDRC from Rs 18 lakhs to Rs 40.10 lakhs along with interest.
The matter was related to heart stroke suffered by the deceased on 3-06-2009 who was taken to Anusha Critical Care and was advised to undergo bypass surgery. The same was performed at Global Hospital on 24-06-2009 and it was alleged that due to irregular and improper supply of oxygen during surgery, blood clotting was caused in the vessels carrying blood to the brain resulting in brain dysfunction leading to unconsciousness/coma in the operation theatre. He was put on a ventilator to support breathing and ultimately lost to death on 30-07-2009.
A consumer complaint was filed before the TSCDRC alleging deficiency of service/medical negligence on part of the doctor performing surgery and seeking compensation of Rs 40 lakhs. The same was allowed by TSCDRC directing the hospital to pay compensation of Rs 18 lakhs to the complainants with costs of Rs 5,000, while the complaint against the doctor who performed surgery was dismissed.
While the hospital and doctor submitted due care and appropriate treatment provided to the deceased and denied any kind of negligence. While the complainants contended that there was gross negligence on part of the operating staff, and that the compensation of ended up with amount of around Rs 12 lakh since the rest was amount paid to the hospital for deceased’s treatment, subsequent hospitalization fee and other expenses.
The Commission perused the evidence on record based on which the TSCDRC held the hospital vicariously liable for deficiency in service and not the doctor due to absence of privity of contract. The Commission viewed that TSCDRC considered all the relevant facts and took note of all the documents and rival contentions of parties while concluding about negligence on part of the attending staff. The Commission did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of TSCDRC during the appeal but endorsed the same. The Commission also concurred with the quantum of compensation of Rs 18 lakhs instead of Rs 40 lakhs but considering the time for compliance of the same, the Commission imposed interest @9% p.a. from 4-12-2016 till the date of actual payment. The Commission also enhanced the cost of Rs 5000 awarded to the complainants to Rs 30,000. On expiry of 1 month of the said order, the interest was set to increase @12% p.a.
[Global Hospital v. P. Manjula, 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 226, Order dated 5-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Advocate Shwetan K. Sailakwal;
For Respondent: Advocate P.K. Mullick, Advocate Soma Mullick, Advocate Syed N. Shakeel, Advocate S.K. Deuria.
