Very Important Points
1. Both Parents of child as well the child patient would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to both commission can award compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.
2. Compensation for mental agony to parents of child patient cannot be denied on the ground that after medical negligence, hospital authorities followed humanitarian approach to tackle the situation.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(d)(ii)-Consumer of Services-Minor child being the patient who was admitted into the appellant Hospital for treatment-Can the parents of the child be held to be consumers so as to claim compensation under COPRA? (Yes)-Even if the child as well as the parents of the child would come under definition of the “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act whether compensation can be awarded in favour of both the consumers or compensation can be awarded only to the beneficiary of the services rendered, who in the present case would be child who was admitted into the Hospital [under Section 14(1)(d)]? (to Both consumers).
       Held : In the present case, we are concerned with clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d). In the said clause a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services. When a young child is taken to a hospital by his parents and the child is treated by the doctor, the parents would come within the definition of consumer having hired the services and the young child would also become a consumer under the inclusive definition being a beneficiary of such services. The definition clause being wide enough to include not only the person who hires the services but also the beneficiary of such services which beneficiary is other than the person who hires the services, the conclusion is irresistible that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and as such can claim compensation under the Act. (Para 12)
       The learned counsel urged that clause (d) of Section 14 may not be interpreted enabling the Commission to award compensation both to the minor child and his parents. We see absolutely no force in the aforesaid contention inasmuch as the Commission would be entitled to award compensation under clause (d) to a consumer for any loss or injury suffered by such consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. If the parents of the child having hired the services of the hospital are consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and the child also is consumer being a beneficiary of such services hired by his parents in the inclusive definition in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the Commission will be fully justified in awarding compensation to both of them for the injury each one of them has sustained. In the case in hand the Commission has awarded compensation in favour of the minor child taking into account the cost of equipments and the recurring expenses that would be necessary for the said minor child who is merely having a vegetative life. The compensation awarded in favour of the parents of the minor child is for their acute mental agony and the life long care and attention which the parents would have to bestow on the minor child. The award of compensation in respect of respective consumers are on different head. We see no infirmity with the order of the Commission awarding different amount of compensation on different head, both being consumers under the Act. Accordingly, the Commission in our considered opinion rightly awarded compensation in favour of the parents in addition to the compensation in favour of the minor child. (Para 13)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 14(1)(d)-Compensation for mental agony-Medical negligence in treatment of child patient-Humanitarian approach of hospital authorities later-Whether a ground to deny the compensation for mental agony to the parents? (No).
       Held : The learned counsel for the appellants in course of his argument has contended that not only the hospital authorities had immediately on their own taken the assistance of several specialists to treat the child but also even after the child was discharged from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, humanitarian approach has been taken by the hospital authorities and child has been taken care of by the hospital even without charging any money for the services rendered and consequently in such a situation the award of damages for mental agony to the parents is wholly unjustified. We, however, fail to appreciate this argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants inasmuch as the mental agony of the parent will not be dismissed in any manner merely seeing the only child living a vegetative state on account of negligence of the hospital authorities on a hospital bed. The agony of the parents would remain so long as they remain alive and the so-called humanitarian approach of the hospital authorities in no way can be considered to be a factor in denying the compensation for mental agony suffered by the parents. (Para 14)
       In the premises as aforesaid, the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants having failed, the appeal fails and is dismissed. (Para 15)
       Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. (Para 16)

Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-These two appeals arise out of the order dated 16th June, 1997 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in Original Petition No. 292 of 1994. The Hospital is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 1997 while the insurance company is the appellant in the other appeal. When the special leave applications out of which the two aforesaid appeals arise were listed for preliminary hearing, the Court had issued notice limited to the award of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation to the parents of the child even though the insurance company has raised the question of its liability to pay the compensation in question.

2. A Complaint Petition was filed by minor Harjot Ahluwalia through his parents Mrs. Harpreet Ahluwalia and Mr. Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia before the Commission alleging that the minor was being treated at a Nursing Home in Noida in December, 1993. As there was no improvement in his health the said minor was brought to M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 1997 on 24th of December, 1993. In the hospital the patient was examined by the Senior Consultant Paediatrician, Dr. Promila Bhutani and on the advice of the said doctor the patient was admitted as an in-patient in the hospital. The doctor made the diagnosis that the patient was suffering from typhoid and intimated the parents that medicines have been prescribed for the treatment of the typhoid fever. On the 30th of December, 1993 at 9.00 a.m. Miss Bina Matthew, nurse of the hospital asked the father of the minor patient to get the injection - Inj Lariago - to be administered intravenously to the minor patient. The father of the minor child purchased the medicine which was written down by the nurse and gave it, whereupon the nurse injected the same to the minor patient. The patient, immediately on being injected collapsed while still in the lap of his mother. It was further alleged that before administering the injection the nurse had not made any sensitive test to find out whether there would be any adverse reaction on the patient. Seeing the minor child collapse the parents immediately called for help and the Resident Doctor Dr. Dhananjay attended the patient. Said Dr. Dhananjay told the parents that the child had suffered a cardiac arrest and then by manually pumping the chest the Doctor attempted to revive the heartbeat. The hospital authorities then summoned an Anaesthetist, Dr. Anil Mehta who arrived within half an hour and then started a procedure of manual respiration by applying the oxygen cylinder and manual Respirator. In the meantime Dr. Promila Bhutani also reached the hospital and the minor child was kept on a device called manual Respirator. Though the child was kept alive on the manual ventilator but the condition of the child did not show any improvement. In course of treatment as the minor’s platelets count fell, a blood transfusion was given but still no improvement could be seen. Dr. Mehta, therefore, intimated the parents that the hospital does not have the necessary facilities to manage the minor child and he should be shifted to an Intensive Care Unit equipped with an Auto Respirator. On the advice of Dr. Mehta the parents brought the child and admitted him in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on the 3rd January, 1994. In the Institute the doctors examined the minor child thoroughly and informed the parents that the child is critical and even if he would survive, he would live only in a vegetative state as irreparable damage had been caused to his brain and there was no chance of revival of the damaged parts. The minor was then kept in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit of the AIIMS till 24th of January, 1994 and was thereafter discharged after informing the parents that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the minor child there. Dr. Anil Mehta as well as Dr. Na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document