The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the surgeon and the hospital for medical negligence, the endorsement of the need for qualitative change in the functioning of the hospital, and the grant of compensation and interest on the total quantum of the award.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - G.M. Modi Hospital & Research Centre for Medical Science, New Delhi challenging the impugned judgment/final order dated 13th May, 2022 passed by the National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). By the said order, the NCDRC held that, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2/Doctor - Dr. A.K Panigrahi are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint by the Respondent No. 1 - Vishnu Priya Giri (deceased) through legal heirs.

3. The case arises out of a complaint bearing no. C.C.No.246/2007 preferred in 2007, by the Respondent No.1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (SCDRC) titled as Smt. Vishnu Priya Giri vs. The Principal Secretary Health & Family Welfare Development & Ors. wherein several allegations were made against the doctors and the Petitioner hospital.

4. Respondent No. 1, unfortunately, passed away on 22nd January, 2008. The SCDRC had, initially, awarded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation which was set aside by the NCDRC and finally, vide judgment dated 25th October, 2018, the SCDRC granted a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- without interest to the Respondent No.1. The said order of the SCDRC was challenged before the NCDRC wherein vide the impugned order dated 13th May, 2022 the compensation amount was enhanced and interest was also granted. The operative part of the impugned order passed by the NCDRC is as under:

"15. Adverting to the question of quantum of compensation in the medical negligence cases, the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Lata Wadhwa v State of Bihar and in National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay Sethi. In the instant case, the Surgeon failed in his duty of care and it was not a reasonable standard of practice, thus he was negligent. The State Commission ignored the medical negligence of the Surgeon; and for the qualitative change awarded Rs.20 lakh as compensation. In our view, the medical negligence is attributed to the doctor and hospital, therefore, the Complainant deserves the compensation. Accordingly, we modify the Order of State Commission that Rs.20 lakh to be paid as just and fair compensation for the medical negligence causing death of the patient. We further endorse the view taken by State Commission for the need of qualitative change in functioning of hospital, therefore, the Hospital shall pay Rs.5 lakh more to the Complainant. It is evident that, the incident occurred in year 2005, the Complaint was filed in year 2007 and we are in 2022 beyond 11/2 decade. Thus as discussed above (para 8 & 9) the Complainant deserves interest on the total quantum of award.

16. To conclude, the impugned Order is modified to the extent that the treating Surgeon was liable for medical negligence; as well, the hospital is vicariously liable. The hospital needs qualitative change and systemic improvement also. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, the OP/Respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay jointly and severally total compensation of Rs.25 lakh with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint to the Complainant within 6 weeks from today, failing which it will attract interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation. The cost of litigation shall remain to Rs.1 lakh only."

5. In the present petition on the last date, this Court vide order dated 15th November, 2022 had observed as under:

"3. Prima facie and on consideration of the submissions which have been addressed by Mr. Puri, learned senior counsel who appears in support of the writ petitioner, the Court is of the considered opinion that the matter would merit further consideration. The Court further notes that out of the total sum which was awarded, the petitioner is already stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.