IMPORTANT POINT
Medical negligence – Amount of compensation varies from person to person, looking to damages and/or disability suffered/sustained – Merely because in some cases, amount of compensation has been enhanced, in other cases, amount of compensation cannot be enhanced.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “National Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 4677 of 2013 by which in a revision petition preferred by the appellants herein – original respondents, the National Commission has enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the District Forum to Rs. 10 lakhs, the original respondents have preferred the present appeal.

2. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

3.1 The respondent herein – the original complainant, a minor filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum through her father alleging medical negligence against the appellants herein, who suffered from wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment, which led to rashes on her body, and which became beyond control. It was alleged that the doctor, who treated her was a BAMS (Ayurveda Doctor) and was not competent to prescribe allopathic medicines, which amounts to medical negligence.

3.2 The District Forum by order dated 11.03.2010 directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of order holding that there was a negligence on the part of the appellants.

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the appellants preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”). At this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as the original complainant is concerned, it is an admitted position that the original complainant did not prefer any appeal before the State Commission to enhance the amount of compensation and it was the appellants, who preferred the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the said appeal with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the District Forum awarding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards the compensation, it was the appellants, who preferred the revision petition/application before the National Commission.

3.5 While dismissing the revision petition/application preferred by the appellants herein, the National Commission has enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the National Commission enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs, that too, in the revision petition/application preferred by the appellants, the original opponents/appellants have preferred the present appeal.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayana, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.K. Mohan, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent – original complainant.

5. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayana, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the District Forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission, on the negligence held to be proved on the part of the appellants. However, as there are concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission on the negligence on the part of the appellants, we see no reason to interfere with the said finding of facts in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

5.1 However, at the same time, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants is right in submitting that in a revision application preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, awarding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation, and that when neither any appeal was preferred by the original complainant before the State Commission, nor thereafter any further appeal and/or revision application w