Summary
A minor alleged medical negligence by a nursing home whose BAMS (Ayurveda) doctor prescribed allopathic treatment that led to uncontrolled rashes. The District Forum awarded her Rs. 1 lakh. The nursing home alone appealed and lost. In the nursing home's own revision, the National Commission enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10 lakh. The Supreme Court declined to disturb the concurrent finding of negligence. But since the complainant never challenged the quantum, the award had become final as to her. It had not invoked suo motu revisional power under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor given notice, and it enhanced the award without reasons or any discussion of disability. Considering her continuing suffering and treatment costs, the Court raised the compensation to Rs. 4 lakh under Article 142.
Issues
- Whether the National Commission could enhance compensation in a revision filed only by the opposite party, when the complainant had never challenged the quantum
- Whether the enhancement to Rs. 10 lakh was supported by reasons
Provisions considered
- Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The National Commission's suo motu revisional power was not invoked, and no notice of enhancement was given to the revisionists, so the enhancement in their own revision was unsustainable. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaTo do substantial justice, given the proved negligence, the complainant's trauma, continuing treatment and expenses, the District Forum's award was enhanced to Rs. 4 lakh. (¶¶ 7.2, 8)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings of medical negligence by the three consumer fora were not interfered with. (¶ 5)
Held
- The concurrent findings of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission that negligence was proved do not call for interference under Article 136. (¶ 5)
- The complainant never appealed or sought revision against the District Forum's quantum, so the order became final as to her. In a revision preferred only by the opposite parties, the National Commission could at most dismiss it, unless it specifically exercised suo motu revisional power under Section 21(b). It did not do so and gave the revisionists no notice, taking them by surprise. (¶ 7)
- Compensation depends on the damage and disability suffered in each case and cannot be enhanced merely because it was enhanced in other cases. The National Commission cited some decisions but did not discuss the complainant's disability at all. (¶¶ 5.2, 7.1)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The enhancement to Rs. 10 lakh was set aside, and under Article 142 the appellants were directed to pay a total of Rs. 4 lakh, less amounts deposited, within six weeks, failing which with 7.5% interest.