Summary
The Supreme Court awarded a further Rs 10 lakh to a woman whose arm was amputated following medical negligence. The existing award inadequately addressed lifelong disability, pain, lost amenities and family contribution. A victim’s poor rural background could not justify restricting compensation for those harms.
Issues
- Whether the compensation for amputation caused by medical negligence was just and reasonable.
Held
- The National Commission’s negligence findings disclosed no infirmity, including delay in responding to severe pain, inadequate transfer arrangements and the injection-related lapse identified on the evidence. (¶ 13–14)
- Just compensation for disablement must address pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, including pain, suffering and lost amenities. Poverty or rural background cannot diminish recognition of those human harms; family contribution and vulnerability also required consideration. (¶ 15–16.4)
- The existing compensation was too restrictive. An additional Rs 10 lakh was appropriate in these circumstances, with three months to pay and default interest on that enhanced sum. (¶ 17–18)
Result
Appeal allowed; further Rs 10 lakh awarded over the State and National Commission amounts. Respondents to pay within three months; on default the enhanced amount carries 6% annual interest from filing of the consumer complaint.