MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES AND LAW
Medical Negligence Cases in India, Individual Liability of Doctors, Civil Damages
in Medical Negligence Cases, Criminal Cases in medical negligence in India, Medical
Negligence Cases Lawyers in Delhi India, Medical Negligence attorneys India, Judgment
on Medical Negligence Cases in India.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Anuradha Shaha Medical
Negligence Case Judgment by Supreme Court of India
Medical Negligent Historical Case Judgment by Supreme Court of India- Anuradha
Shaha Case.
The appellant-doctors are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
National Commission and the liability fastened upon them for the negligence on their
part and have prayed to set aside the same by allowing their appeals. In so far
as the appellant-AMRI Hospital is concerned, it has also questioned the quantum
of compensation awarded and has prayed to reduce the same by awarding just and reasonable
compensation by modifying the judgment by allowing its appeal.
So far as the claimant is concerned, he is aggrieved by the said judgment and the
compensation awarded which, according to him, is inadequate, as the same is contrary
to the admitted facts and law laid down by this Court in catena of cases regarding
awarding of compensation in relation to the proved medical negligence for the death
of his wife Anuradha Saha (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’)
The brief relevant facts and the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant-doctors,
AMRI Hospital and the claimant in seriatim are adverted to in this common judgment
for the purpose of examining the correctness of their respective legal contentions
urged in their respective appeals with a view to pass common judgment and award.
Brief necessary and relevant facts of the case are stated hereunder:
The claimant filed Original Petition No. 240 of 1999 on 09.03.1999 before the National
Commission claiming compensation for Rs.77,07,45,000/- and later the same was amended
by claiming another sum of Rs.20,00,00,000/-. After the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly
Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee[1] was remanded by this Court to the National Commission
to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimant by answering the points
framed in the said case, the National Commission held the doctors and the AMRI Hospital
negligent in treating the wife of the claimant on account of which she died. Therefore,
this Court directed the National Commission to determine just and reasonable compensation
payable to the claimant. However, the claimant, the appellant-Hospital and the doctors
were aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the National Commission
and also the manner in which liability was apportioned amongst each of them. While
the claimant was aggrieved by the inadequate amount of compensation, the appellant-doctors
and the Hospital found the amount to be excessive and too harsh. They further claimed
that the proportion of liability ascertained on each of them is unreasonable. Since,
the Court; we intend to produce their contentions in brief as under:
On granting the quantum of compensation based on the income of the deceased:
It is the claim of the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-doctors and the
Hospital that there is no pleading in the petition of the claimant that the deceased
had a stable job or a stable income, except in paragraph 2A of the petition which
states that the deceased was a Post-Graduate student and she had submitted her thesis.
The only certificate produced by the claimant shows that she was just a graduate
in Arts (English). Further, it is urged by the learned counsel that the document
produced by the claimant - a computer generated sheet, does not explain for what
work the remuneration, if at all was received by the deceased. Also, whether the
same was a onetime payment of stipend or payment towards voluntary work, is not
explained by the claimant. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel that there
is no averment in the petition of the claimant as to on what account the said payment
was received by the deceased and whether she has received it as a Child Psychologist
as claimed by the claimant or otherwise.
It is also the case of the appellant-doctors and the Hospital that the claimant
had not led any oral evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and further
he has not explained why just a single document discloses the payment made sometime
in the month of June 1988 in support of the income of the deceased when admittedly,
the couple came to India in the month of March-April, 1998. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the appellant-doctors and the Hospital have urged that the said document
is a vague document and no reliance could have been placed by the National Commission
on the same to come to the conclusion that the deceased in fact had such an income
to determine and award the compensation as has been awarded in the impugned judgment
and order. From a perusal of the said document, it could be ascertained that it
shows just one time payment received for some odd jobs. Therefore, it is contended
by the appellant-doctors and the Hospital that the claimant has not been able to
discharge his onus by adducing any positive evidence in this regard before the National
Commission.
It is further contended by the learned counsel that the assertion of the claimant
in the petition and in his evidence before the National Commission that the income
of the deceased was $30,000 per annum is not substantiated by producing cogent evidence.
No appointment letter of the deceased to show that she was employed in any organization
in whatsoever capacity had been produced nor has the claimant produced any income
certificate/salary sheet. No evidence is produced by the claimant in support of
the fact that the deceased was engaged on any permanent work. No Income Tax Return
has been produced by the claimant to show that she had been paying tax or had any
income in U.S.A.
It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that the annual income of the
deceased was $30,000 per annum, apart from deduction on account of tax, it is also
essential for the National Commission to ascertain the personal living expenses
of the deceased which was required to be deducted out of the annual income to determine
the compensation payable to the claimant. The National Commission was required to
first ascertain the style of living of the deceased-whether it was Spartan or Bohemian
to arrive the income figure of $30,000 per annum. In India, on account of style
and standard of living of a person, one–third of the gross income is required to
be deducted out of the annual income as laid down in the decision of this Court
in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jashuben & Ors[2].
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-doctors and the
Hospital that no yardstick is available about the expenditure of the deceased in
the U.S.A. The claimant has not adduced any evidence in this regard. The evidence
given by the so-called expert, Prof. John F. Burke Jr. also does not say anything
on this score.
Even if it is assumed that the annual income of the deceased was $30,000 per annum
for which there is no evidence, 25% thereof is required to be deducted towards tax.
The deduction of tax is much more as is apparent from the case reported in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors[3]. In fact, the
claimant has neither adduced any evidence in this regard nor has he produced the
relevant statute from which the percentage of tax deduction can be ascertained.
The Civil Appeal No. 2866/2012 filed by the claimant-Dr.Kunal Saha is also partly
allowed and the finding on contributory negligence by the National Commission on
the part of the claimant is set aside. The direction of the National Commission
to deduct 10% of the awarded amount of compensation on account of contributory negligence
is also set aside by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,34,66,000/- to Rs.6,08,00,550/-
with 6% interest per annum from the date of the complaint to the date of the payment
to the claimant.
The AMRI Hospital is directed to comply with this judgment by sending demand draft
of the compensation awarded in this appeal to the extent of liability imposed on
it after deducting the amount, if any, already paid to the claimant, within eight
weeks and submit the compliance report.