Vision loss after surgery: Supreme Court slaps Rs 2 lakh compensation on doctor for medical negligence
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently directed a Haryana-based doctor to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation for medical negligence leading to the vision loss in the left eye of an 84-year-old patient.
Apart from this, the bench has asked the doctor to pay another Rs 50,000 as legal cost on the doctor for making a false representation before the State Commission claiming that the amount of compensation had been paid to the man in the year 2011.
While the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had modified the amount of interest paid on the amount of compensation from 12% to 6%, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R.Gavai and Sandeep Mehta again modified the order and enhanced the rate of interest to 12%.
"In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we modify the orders passed by the NCDRC and direct that the appellant P.C. Jain shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs only with interest @ 12% per annum from the respondent Dr. ** Singh with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment is made," the bench mentioned in the order dated 29.01.2024.
The Apex Court was considering a batch of appeals arising out of the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant claimed to have lost vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed by Dr. Singh, the treating doctor, in a surgical procedure. Therefore, the patient filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Faridabad.
Consequently, DCDRC Faridabad allowed the complaint and granted him compensation of Rs 2 lakhs with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization, holding the doctor guilty of medical negligence in treating the complainant.
The order of the District Commission was challenged by the doctor before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, which was allowed by the State Commission, which held that since the patient was operated at New Delhi, the DCDRC, Faridabad had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Therefore, the State Consumer Court directed the amount of Rs 2 lakhs to be refunded to the doctor.
Following this, the complainant challenged the order before the NCDRC bench, which remanded the matter back to SCDRC for fresh decision on merits. The State Commission again allowed the appeal filed by the doctor and dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant approached the NCDRC bench, which accepted the appeal and held that the compensation awarded by the DCDRC to the appellant-complainant Rs 2 lakhs was just and proper. However, the top consumer court held that the interest @12% was excessive, and accordingly, the bench reduced it to 6%.
Meanwhile, the doctor filed a review petition seeking clarification of the NCDRC order and allowing this review application, the Apex Consumer Court allowed ex-parte vide order dated 22nd July, 2022 accepting the unilateral version of the treating doctor that he had deposited an amount of Rs 2 lakhs before the State Consumer Court and the deposited amount was released in favor of appellant-complainant. Accordingly, a clarificatory order was issued observing that the doctor was liable to pay interest from the date of filing of the complaint upto 5th September, 2008 only.
Being aggrieved by the order, the patient filed a review application before the NCDRC objecting to the ex-parte order. However, this review application was rejected by NCDRC and the complainant. Thereafter, the matter came to be considered before the Supreme Court.
While considering the matter, the Supreme Court bench noted that the Ethics committee of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted an inquiry and passed an order dated 20th December, 2012 holding Dr. Singh to be in violation of Professional Misconduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulation, 2002.
Accordingly, the MCI passed an order dated 20th April, 2015 and held the doctor guilty of medical negligence in treatment of the complainant and affirmed the recommendations of the Ethics Committee removing his name from the Indian Medical Register for a period of six months.
At this outset, the Supreme Court bench noted, "On going through the pleadings of civil appeals preferred by the respondent Dr. **Singh, it becomes clear that the said order issued by MCI was not challenged by the respondent Dr. ** Singh and thus, has attained finality."
"In the background of the aforesaid facts, the issue regarding the respondent Dr. ** Singh having committed medical negligence in treating the appellant-complainant *** is no longer res integra. Consequently, the order dated 18th May, 2022 whereby the revision preferred by the appellant-complainant *** was accepted, the order of SCDRC was reversed and the order of the DCDRC was affirmed, does not warrant any interference in the appeals preferred by Dr.** Singh," further noted the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the complainant has been contesting the long drawn litigation for a rightful claim of compensation for more than 20 years. It further noted, "The NCDRC, while accepting the revision of the appellant complainant ***, reduced the interest awarded by the DCDRC from 12% to 6%, with a bald unreasoned observation that the rate of interest so applied was on the higher side and, therefore, the same was reduced to 6%."
Further, the Court observed that the doctor misrepresented to the NCDRC that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs only, which had been paid to the appellant-complainant in the year 2011. Meanwhile, the complainant made a specific plea claiming that he had not received a single penny towards compensation for the loss of vision suffered by him owing to the medical negligence committed by the doctor.
At this outset, the Court noted that the review petition filed by the doctor was allowed ex-parte by the NCDRC in a totally cavalier fashion without putting the complainant to notice.
Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the NCDRC order and directed that the appellant complainant shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs only with interest @ 12% per annum from the treating doctor with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment is made.
"The respondent Dr. *** shall pay the compensation as directed above to the appellant-complainant within two months from today failing which the interest shall stand enhanced to 15% per annum," further noted the Apex Court.
The Court further directed the doctor to pay another Rs 50,000 for misrepresentation before the State Commission and ordered, "As the respondent Dr. *** procured the order under review dated 22nd July, 2022 by making a false representation that the amount of compensation had been paid to the appellant-complainant ***, we impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the respondent Dr. *** which upon realisation, shall be paid to the appellant-complainant..."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-compensation-231267.pdf
