The court upheld the assessment of compensation based on the disability percentage and rejected the argument to assess compensation only as per the Workmen Compensation Act, emphasizing the principles applicable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for calculating compensation.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7856/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein (Appellants herein) to pay a sum of Rs.23,47,680/- to the Petitioner therein (Respondent herein) as compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition, the Appellants have filed the instant appeal.

2. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as under:

a) On 30.06.2010, the Respondent, a vegetable vender, approached Appellant No.2/Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital complaining of lower abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting. It is stated that he was administered three injections i.e., Rantac IV, Voveran IM and Buscopan IM injections. 2 out of these 3 injections were administered intra-veinously, because of which Respondent had developed complications. On the same day, the Respondent came back to Appellant No.2/Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital where he was diagnosed with Thrombophlebitis and was administered 2 more injections, namely, IV Avil and IV Efcorlin.

b) On 01.07.2010, the Respondent, thereafter, was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital (Respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition) where he was denied emergency treatment, and was advised to approach a specialist doctor at LNJP Hospital, Delhi. On 02.07.2010, the Respondent herein was diagnosed with Compartment Syndrome, and later admitted for a Fasciotomy procedure. After the Respondent was kept under observation at LNJP Hospital for 27 days, the patient was advised to get his affected arm amputated. The Respondent, thereafter, got discharged himself on his own.

c) On 19.11.2010, the Respondent herein filed writ petition being W.P.(C) 7856/2010 (from which the present appeal arises) with prayers, inter-alia, seeking issuance of directions to Appellant/Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital to provide necessary medical assistance for treatment of his damaged forearm, and to provide adequate compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of the Appellant/Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital's negligent treatment.

d) It is stated that vide Order dated 18.02.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 7856/2010, this Court directed the Superintendent of RML Hospital, Delhi to arrange for a thorough medical examination of the patient, and to advise the patient of appropriate medical treatment. On 22.03.2011, on directions issued by the Court in WP (C) 7856/2010, a Medical Board of RML Hospital was constituted to look into the case of the Respondent and to submit a report with their findings. Relevant extracted portion of the Medical Board report is reads as under:

"The right upper limb is affected from elbow downwards. The upper two third of ulnar bone is exposed, grossly infected and non-viable. There is stiffness of elbow joint. The supination and pronation movement is restricted. There is stiffness of wrist joint, MP Joints, PIP joints and DIP joints of all the fingers. The thumb is gangrenous line of demarcation at distal to MP Joint. There is partial sensation in the forearm. Opinion: Post volkmann ischemic contracture, exposed and non- viableulnar bone with infected wound with stiff hand and elbow with gangrene thumb hypo-anesthetic and non- functional hand.

Treatment option: Amputation of thumb at MP joint level and coverage of exposed bone with flap cover. However, in view of severe stiffness of wrist and small joints and sensory impairment limb will have negligible function. Amputation of right forearm and hand at elbow Joint may be considered in the long run."

e) This Court vide Order dated 22.07.2013 directed the Appellant No.1 herein/GNCTD, to constitute an Enquiry Committee, consisting of three senior doctors to examine the complaint of the Petitioner (Respondent herein) made in the Writ Petition, and report as to whether there has been any negligence on the part of Appellant No.2/Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, or any of its doctors/staff me