SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
SPRING MEADOWS HOSPITAL &
ANR. ETC.—Appellants
versus
HARJOL AHLUWALIA THROUGH K.S.
AHLUWALIA & ANR.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 1997 with C.A. No. 7858 of 1997—Decided on 25.3.1998
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - COMPENSATION - PARENTS OF CHILD - MENTAL AGONY - LIABILITY OF HOSPITAL AND INSURANCE COMPANY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 2(1)(D) AND 14 OF THE ACT - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTIONS 2(1)(D), 14.
Fact of the Case:
A minor child was admitted to a hospital for treatment of typhoid. A nurse, who was not qualified, injected the child with a high dose of Lariago, causing cardiac arrest and brain damage. The child was later admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, where he was diagnosed with a vegetative state. The parents of the child filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), seeking compensation for the negligence of the hospital and the insurance company that had insured the hospital.
Finding of the Court:
The NCDRC held that the hospital was liable for the negligence of its employees, including the unqualified nurse and the doctor who allowed her to administer the injection. The Commission also held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the hospital for the amount of compensation awarded to the child. Additionally, the NCDRC awarded compensation to the parents of the child for the mental agony they had suffered.
Issues: 1. Whether the parents of the child can be considered consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and claim compensation for mental agony. 2. Whether the NCDRC has the power to award compensation to the parents for mental agony under Section 14 of the Act. 3. Whether compensation can be awarded to both the child and the parents, or only to the child who was the direct recipient of the services.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'consumer' in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act is broad enough to include both the person who hires the services and the beneficiary of such services. In this case, the parents of the child hired the services of the hospital and the child was the beneficiary of those services. Therefore, both the parents and the child are consumers under the Act and can claim compensation. 2. Section 14 of the Act empowers the NCDRC to award compensation to a consumer for any loss or injury suffered due to the negligence of the service provider. The mental agony suffered by the parents of the child is a direct result of the negligence of the hospital. Therefore, the NCDRC has the power to award compensation to the parents for mental agony. 3. The NCDRC can award compensation to both the child and the parents because they are both consumers who have suffered different types of injuries. The child has suffered physical injuries and the parents have suffered mental agony. The compensation awarded to each consumer is for a different type of injury.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the hospital and the insurance company are dismissed. The NCDRC's order awarding compensation to the child and the parents is upheld.
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 Mathew, 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 heart-beat. 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. Naresh Jun
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.