Leave granted.
The appellant-complainant filed a petition before the Kerala State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the State Commission’) for
award of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,96,500/- by alleging that due to negligence
of the respondent-Cochin Hospital and doctors, he had lost vision in one eye and was
forced to seek voluntary retirement from service. He claimed Rs.13,000/- as cost of
treatment, Rs.7,500/- towards transportation charges, Rs.4,32,000/- as loss of income
due to voluntary retirement, Rs.1,44,000/- which he would have earned by continuing
in service, Rs.2,00,000/- by way of damages for pain and suffering, Rs.5,00,000/- by
way of damages for mental agony to himself, wife and children and Rs.1,00,000/- as
damages for disfigurement. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 contested the complaint by
asserting that it was not a case of medical negligence and that the claim made by the
appellant was exorbitant.
The State Commission, after considering the pleadings of the parties and
record produced by them, held that the doctors who performed the surgery are not
guilty of negligence and the loss of vision may have been caused due to infection. In
the opinion of the State Commission, the hospital authorities may have been negligent
in maintaining hygiene and this may have led to infection. The State Commission
then observed that the complainant has not been able to prove that he suffered any
pecuniary loss and awarded Rs.40,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards
expenditure and Rs.1,000/- by way of cost. On appeal, the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the National Commission’) criticized the
observation of the State Commission that the complainant could not prove that he
had suffered pecuniary loss and observed that loss of one eye for the entire life was an
extremely serious matter which deserved a more sensitive approach by the State
Commission. The National Commission held that the appellant has suffered due to
gross negligence of the hospital authorities and enhanced the compensation from
Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of treatment from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.13,000/-. The
National Commission directed that the amount be paid to the appellant-complainant
within six weeks, failing which he shall be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per
cent per annum. Feeling dissatisfied, the complainant has filed this appeal by special
leave.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the appellant
suffered loss of vision in one eye due to negligence of the hospital authorities to
maintain
hygiene, which led to infection. This finding of the State Commission was not
challenged by the respondents before the National Commission and, therefore, the
same will be deemed to have become final. The disability suffered by the appellant is
of permanent nature. The appellant, who was in government service, was forced to
take pre-mature retirement nine years before the date of superannuation apparently
because he could not effectively discharge his duties. At the relevant time his salary
was Rs.6400/-. On retirement, the appellant was given pension at the rate of Rs.2500/-
per month. Thus, the difference in salary and retirement benefit was Rs.3,900/- per
month. After taking into consideration the expected increase in salary, the appellant
claimed compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- in lieu of the loss of salary. The respondents
have not disputed the fact that the appellant had sought voluntary retirement and
consequently, he suffered pecuniary loss. The State Commission awarded paltry
amount of Rs.40,000/- without even considering the appellant’s plea that he was
forced to seek voluntary retirement nine years before the age of superannuation. The
National Commission did enhance the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- but without
adverting to the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant due to pre-mature
retirement from service. In our considered view, the monetary loss suffered by the
appellant furnishes valid basis for award of enhanced compensation to him.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with costs, impugned order is
modified and the management of Cochin Hospital is directed to pay enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- to the appellant in addition to enhanced cost of
treatment i.e. Rs.13,000/-. The appellant shall get cost of litigation which is assessed
at Rs.50,000/-. The entire
amount shall be paid to the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, failing which the hospital authority shall be liable to pay interest at
the rate of twelve per cent per annum with effect from the date of this order till the
date of actual payment. The Management shall be entitled to deduct the amount, if
any, already paid to the appellant pursuant to the orders of the State and/or National
Commission.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, January 09, 2009.