Hospital told to go for settlement with petitioner,the hindu

Hospital told to go for settlement with petitioner

J. Venkatesan

He has sought Rs. 7 crore as compensation alleging medical negligence

Offer of compensation should be

reasonable: court

The complainant became a paraplegic

after surgery

NEW DELHI: Seeing the plight of a person who became a paraplegic after surgery and arguing his case from a wheelchair, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, to go for a settlement with the complainant seeking a total compensation of Rs. 7 crore against Rs. 15.5 lakh awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

A Bench consisting of Justices B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi said, “the Director of the Institute, along with the State Health Secretary and the complainant or his father, shall explore the possibility of a settlement.”

While the complainant insisted on payment of Rs. 7 crore including interest, counsel for the hospital agreed to go for an out-of-court settlement, provided the Commission’s observation of negligence on the ground that a neurosurgeon was not present at the time of surgery was removed.

Mr. Justice Agrawal told counsel that the offer of compensation should be reasonable. The Bench directed that the matter be listed to July 22, when settlement or otherwise would be informed to the court.

Prasanth S. Dhananka went to the hospital in September 1990 for a check-up as he was suffering from on and off fever for one year.

On examination, it was noticed that he had a large mass in his left hemithorax (chest cavity). A surgery was performed and the tumour was removed. But, post-surgery he became a paraplegic — paralysis of the lower limbs of the body. He moved the Commission seeking a compensation of Rs. 5.83 crore, but it awarded Rs. 15.5 lakh. While the hospital filed an appeal in the Supreme Court for quashing the findings, the complainant sought an enhancement of the compensation.

The hospital contended that the Commission had erroneously held that it was negligent in not performing its statutory duties to interact and exchange opinion with sister-institutes in India and abroad and also failed to seek the assistance of a neurosurgeon.

The complainant’s main charge was that the tumour being a neurogenic one, the surgery should have been handled by a neurosurgeon. The surgery completely disturbed the nervous system, making him paraplegic. The compensation awarded was grossly inadequate, he said and sought Rs. 7 crore, including interest.