AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGGRIEVED by the order dated 11. 10. 2002 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-191/1994, the complainant has come up in the present appeal. His prayer in the appeal is only for enhancement of the compensation and relief granted by the State Commission.
WE have heard Mr. D. D. Gupta, authorized representative of the appellant and Mr. C. J. Gupta, Advocate who is assisted by Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Office Executive of the hospital and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions. The consumer dispute related to medical negligence/deficiency on the part of the respondent-hospital and State Commission has found that the I. V. fluid purchased from the pharmacy attached to the hospital was not of standard quality as a result of which patient suffered rigors and secondly the drug given to the patient was of a different name than prescribed by the attending doctor. After holding the hospital negligent, the State Commission has awarded a partly compensation of Rs. 10,000 only to the complainant towards cost of medicine, room charges, etc. , besides Rs. 5,000 as cost of the proceedings. Authorised representative of the appellant has urged before us that the compensation so awarded by the State Commission is not just and reasonable amount keeping in view the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent hospital. Mr. Gupta on the other hand states that the order is justified but has left it to the discretion of this Commission to upgrade the amount of compensation to a reasonable limit if the Commission is so inclined. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the deficiency noted by the State Commission on the part of the hospital, the resultant trauma, sufferings, harassment suffered by the patient and attendants, we feel that State Commission was rather conservative in granting a meagre amount of compensation. We are, therefore, of the view that it should be properly enhanced. In our view it would adequately meet the ends of justice if the respondent-hospital is called upon to pay a consolidated and composite compensation and cost of Rs. 50,000 in all. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the State Commission to the extent that in lieu of the reliefs granted by the State Commission, respondent-hospital shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant as compensation within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to mention that cheque in the sum of Rs. 15,000 sent by the respondent to the appellant has not been encashed and will not be encashed. It would however be open for the respondent-hospital to recover the said amount from the Insurance Company if in its reckoning the Insurance Company is liable for indemnifying the loss. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.