Case Title: JYOTI DEVI VERSUS SUKET HOSPITAL & ORS
Case No: 242 of 2016
Decided on: 23rd April, 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE JUDGE SANJAY KAROL
Facts of the case
The “eggshell skull” rule is applied in this case, meaning that even while the consequences would have been less severe in the absence of the damage, the defendants could nevertheless be held accountable for exacerbating the preexisting injury. The application of the rule is demonstrated by another case, Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., which emphasizes that the tort feasor bears full responsibility for the consequences of their conduct, independent of any preexisting conditions . In the context of medical negligence proceedings, the “eggshell skull” rule is further examined, highlighting the need for the perpetrator to take the victim as they find them and incurring full liability for any damages . The provision guarantees that the sufferer receives fair compensation, taking into account the effects of the harm on the victim’s life and family .
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant’s contentions in the case involve seeking an enhancement of compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is the predecessor legislation to the current Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The dispute arose due to negligence by the respondent Hospital, with the medical record confirming the presence of a needle in the abdomen and inadequate post-operative care. The appellant argued against the finding of medical negligence based on a gap in suffering time, but the NCDRC disagreed, emphasizing over 5 years of suffering. The focus now is on examining the sufficiency of compensation awarded, considering legal principles like medical negligence, compensation, and the ‘eggshell skull’ rule
Respondent’s Contentions
The case’s responder favored an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the act that came before the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 in order to obtain increased compensation. The respondent hospital was deemed to have provided subpar post-operative care by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which also verified that a needle was in the patient’s abdomen. The NCDRC noted a disparity In the appellant’s length of suffering, dismissing the argument that there was a break in suffering and highlighting the necessity of taking into account rulings from the courts regarding medical malpractice, damages, and the “eggshell skull” rule. There has been a plea for appropriate compensation when the NCDRC and State Commission withheld payment despite admitting inadequate treatment and protracted suffering .
Court Analysis and Judgement
The verdict stipulated that Rs. 50,000 in litigation expenses and Rs. 5 lakhs with 9% interest must be paid within four weeks of the verdict date. In cases of medical negligence, the victim’s requests and the interests of the culpable party should be balanced in the compensation award to ensure proper compensation. By offering affordable remedies for complaints about subpar goods and services through grievance redressal agencies at various levels, the Consumer Protection Act seeks to safeguard customers. In a medical negligence case, the Eggshell-Skull Rule’s application was called into question, which resulted in the reinstatement of an award of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant as soon as possible. According to the Eggshell-Skull Rule, people are nevertheless accountable for their acts’ results even if the victim already has a medical condition or susceptibility.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
