Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Medical Negligence Leading to Amputation
The case of Shoda Devi vs. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla & Ors. is a significant ruling in medical negligence law, where the Supreme Court held a government hospital liable for medical negligence that led to the amputation of a patient’s arm. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the victim, recognizing the severe impact of the negligence.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Shoda Devi, a resident of a rural area, was suffering from abdominal pain and menstrual problems. She approached Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (DDU Hospital), Shimla, where she was diagnosed with fibroid and endometrial hyperplasia. Despite initial medication, her symptoms persisted, and she was advised to undergo a minor surgical procedure known as Fractional Curettage (D & C).
On July 19, 2006, she was admitted for the procedure. Before the surgery, a paramedic administered an intravenous injection of Phenergan and Fortwin directly into her right arm. Soon after, she experienced excruciating pain, which she reported to the doctors and medical staff. However, her complaints were ignored.
Her condition worsened, and her right arm started showing signs of acute ischemia (lack of blood supply). Due to the negligence in addressing her complaints, she was transferred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (IGMCH), Shimla, but by then, the damage was irreversible. On July 22, 2006, doctors at IGMCH were forced to amputate her right arm above the elbow.
Legal Proceedings
Devastated by the loss of her arm, Shoda Devi approached the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2006, seeking compensation for medical negligence.
State Consumer Commission’s Ruling
- The Commission ruled that there was no medical negligence.
- However, considering her suffering, the government proposed an ex gratia payment of ₹2,93,526.
Unhappy with the decision, she appealed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
National Commission’s Judgment
- The National Commission ruled that there was clear medical negligence.
- It awarded an additional ₹2,00,000 to the appellant, apart from the ex gratia amount.
Still dissatisfied with the compensation, Shoda Devi appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a higher amount.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Shoda Devi)
- She argued that the hospital staff ignored her complaints of pain, leading to gangrene and the subsequent amputation.
- She cited expert medical opinions that the limb loss could have been prevented if timely care was provided.
- She contended that the ₹2,00,000 awarded was inadequate given the permanent disability and emotional trauma she suffered.
- She pointed to precedents where courts had awarded higher compensation for similar medical negligence cases.
Arguments by the Respondents (DDU Hospital & Ors.)
- The hospital denied negligence and argued that the complication was a rare occurrence beyond their control.
- They claimed that they had administered the standard medical treatment and referred her to IGMCH for specialized care when required.
- They asserted that the ₹2,93,526 ex gratia payment and ₹2,00,000 compensation were sufficient.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court, after reviewing all evidence, upheld the finding of medical negligence and made the following key observations:
- “The hospital failed to provide an ambulance for the patient’s transfer to IGMCH, compelling her husband to arrange a taxi.”
- “There was a delay in attending to her severe pain, which aggravated the ischemic process leading to gangrene.”
- “Preventive measures could have been taken, such as using a cannula for drug administration instead of direct injection, which would have minimized the risk.”
Enhancement of Compensation
The Court criticized the lower compensation amount and ruled:
- The total awarded amount of ₹4,93,526 was insufficient given the lifelong disability.
- Recognizing her poor economic background and the severe disadvantage she faced, the Court increased the compensation by ₹10,00,000, making it a total of ₹14,93,526.
- The respondents were given three months to pay the enhanced compensation.
- Failure to pay within this period would attract an interest of 6% per annum from the date of the complaint.
Significance of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark ruling in medical negligence cases. It sets important precedents:
1. Medical Negligence Defined
- Failure to attend to a patient’s complaints promptly can constitute negligence.
- Hospitals must take preventive measures when administering drugs to avoid complications.
2. Compensation Must Be Just and Reasonable
- Courts should consider the financial background of victims when awarding compensation.
- Physical disability due to medical negligence must be compensated adequately to ensure a dignified life.
3. Strengthening Patients’ Rights
- The judgment reinforces the right of patients to seek compensation for improper medical care.
- It establishes that government hospitals are accountable for negligence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shoda Devi vs. DDU Hospital Shimla ensures justice for victims of medical negligence by awarding fair compensation. The enhanced amount recognizes the impact of the injury on the victim’s life and sends a strong message to hospitals to maintain high medical standards.
Petitioner Name: Shoda Devi.Respondent Name: DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.Place Of Incident: Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.Judgment Date: 07-03-2019.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Shoda Devi vs DDURipon Hospital S Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-03-2019.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
