IMPORTANT POINT
Medical professionals must uphold a high standard of care, and negligence in delegating critical tasks can lead to increased liability and compensation.

ORDER :

1. Delay condoned in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3206 of 2024.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and order dated 15th November, 2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi¹[For short ‘NCDRC’ ] whereby the revision petitions²[Revision Petition No.3766 of 2007 and 2300 of 2008] filed by the sole appellant and the respondent were dismissed while upholding the common order dated 24th August, 2007³[In Appeals No.1479/2006 and 1481/2006] by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore⁴[For short ‘the State Forum’] that had confirmed the order dated 10th May, 2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore⁵[For short ‘the District Forum’]. Vide order dated 10th May, 2006 the District Forum had allowed the complaint⁶[In Complaint No.992/2005] filed by the appellant and it had directed the respondent-Hospital to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- (Rs. Rupees Five lakhs only) to the appellant as compensation along with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses. However, the complaint against opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 and 6 namely, the doctors concerned, was dismissed.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that despite deficiency of services being proved against the respondent-Hospital and the deceased-complainant having claimed a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only) as compensation with interest, the District Forum had suo moto arrived at a rough and ready figure of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) payable as compensation to the appellant without furnishing any reasons for arriving at the said figure.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants draws the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by the National Commission in particular, paras 8 to 12 thereof, wherein, it has been recorded that the deceased appellant had undergone a major surgery of the left lung on 31st October, 2003 and post operation, he had developed hoarseness in his voice. Though an assurance was given by the operating surgeon to the deceased appellant that the hoarseness could be due to the operation that involved complete removal of the tumor along with the lymphnodes around the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve⁷[For the short ‘the RLN’] and had given an assurance that the patient could regain his voice within 6 to 8 months with nebulization and voice therapy, the voice of the deceased-appellant was not restored and remained hoarse all through. Subsequently, the appellant took opinions from two other expert doctors in the field. Both the doctors opined that there was subluxation of the left arytenoid process, which had happened due to wrong intubation during the anaesthesia procedure at the Hospital. On the aspect as to who had performed the intubation during the induction of anaesthesia, it is not in dispute that surgery relating to cancer of the lung is a specialized surgery and needs a specialized anaesthetist. Though the Head of the Department of Anaesthesia was to administer anaesthesia to the deceased-appellant, the same was administered by a doctor who was qualified but was a trainee anaesthetist in Cardiac Anaesthesia Department.

6. The NCDRC frowned on the delegation of such a critical duty on a trainee anaesthetist and treated the same as a breach of duty of care and observed that having regard to the material on record and the medical literature, the dislocation of the left Arytenoid was on account of the trauma caused which led to the paralysis of the vocal cord of the deceased-appellant and that the RLN injury does not cause dislocation of Arytenoid. In other words, the paralysis of the left vocal cord of the deceased-appellant was attributed to the faulty insertion of the Double Lumen Tube in the course of administering anaesthesia to him for undergoing the surgery.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Hospital submits that the District Forum has erred