Dr. Balram Prasad vs Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 05 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
This is a summary of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. The case involves a medical negligence claim filed by Dr. Kunal Saha against several doctors and the AMRI Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, for the death of his wife, Anuradha Saha.
II. Background
In May 1998, Anuradha Saha, a psychology graduate from an Ivy League school in New York, developed a skin rash and was treated by various doctors, including Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Haldar, Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, and Dr. Bairam Prasad. [para 41-45] Despite their efforts, her condition deteriorated, and she was eventually transferred to Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai, where she passed away on May 28, 1998, due to septicemic shock with multi-system organ failure. [para 43]
III. Legal Proceedings
Dr. Kunal Saha filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 1999, seeking compensation of Rs. 77,07,45,000, which was later amended to Rs. 20,00,00,000. [para 4] The NCDRC awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,55,60,000, finding the doctors and the AMRI Hospital liable for medical negligence. [para 39]
Aggrieved by the NCDRC's decision, the doctors, the AMRI Hospital, and Dr. Kunal Saha filed appeals before the Supreme Court. [para 2]
IV. Key Issues
The key issues before the Supreme Court were:
1. Whether the claimant (Dr. Kunal Saha) was justified in seeking enhancement of compensation, and if so, the amount he was entitled to. [para 79]
2. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation on the enhanced claim filed before the NCDRC. [para 79]
3. Whether the claimant had forfeited his right to claim additional compensation under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), as pleaded by the AMRI Hospital. [para 79]
4. Whether the NCDRC was justified in using the multiplier method to determine and award compensation to the claimant. [para 79]
5. Whether the claimant was entitled to pecuniary damages for loss of employment, property, and travel expenses. [para 79]
6. Whether the claimant was entitled to interest on the compensation. [para 79]
7. Review of the compensation awarded in the judgment, apportionment, and the claimant's liability for contributory negligence. [para 79]
V. Court's Findings and Judgment
A. Compensation Enhancement
The Supreme Court allowed the claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation, considering the steady inflation and devaluation of money over the 15-year period since the claim was filed. [para 82] The Court held that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation based on relevant facts and evidence. [para 84]
B. Future Potential Income
The Court recognized that the NCDRC had erred in calculating compensation based solely on Anuradha Saha's low income as a graduate student, failing to consider her future potential income as a psychology graduate from an Ivy League school. [para 85] The Court relied on previous decisions to establish that in cases of death, the future prospects of the deceased's income should be increased by a certain percentage based on their age. [para 87]
C. Pecuniary Damages
The Court awarded the claimant Rs. 5,72,00,550 for the loss of income of the deceased, Rs. 7 lakhs for medical treatment, and Rs. 1,50,000 for travel and hotel expenses. [para 7] However, the claim for loss of income for missed work was rejected. [para 99]
D. Non-Pecuniary Damages
The Court recognized the invaluable contribution of a wife to the household and the loss of personal care and attention to the husband and children. [para 26-27] It awarded Rs. 10 lakhs for the pain and suffering of the claimant's wife and Rs. 1,00,000 for the loss of consortium. [para 30]
E. Interest on Compensation
The Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the complaint until the payment, as the NCDRC had not awarded interest for the 15-year period, which was unreasonable. [para 34]
F. Multiplier Method
The Court rejected the use of the multiplier method for determining compensation in medical negligence claims, finding it inappropriate and potentially leading to over-compensation. [para 97]
G. Apportionment of Liability
The Court apportioned liability among the doctors and the AMRI Hospital as follows:
• Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee: Rs. 10 lakhs [para 7]
• Dr. Baidyanath Haldar: Rs. 10 lakhs [para 7]
• Dr. Bairam Prasad: Rs. 5 lakhs (as a junior doctor) [para 7]
The AMRI Hospital was directed to pay the remaining compensation to the claimant after deducting the amounts payable by the doctors, with interest. [para 37]
H. Contributory Negligence
The Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence by the claimant, which had led to a deduction in the compensation awarded by the NCDRC. [para 37]
VI. Conclusion
The Supreme Court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,08,00,550 to the claimant, Dr. Kunal Saha, for the death of his wife, Anuradha Saha, due to medical negligence by the doctors and the AMRI Hospital. The Court emphasized the need for just and fair compensation based on the victim's status and future prospects, rejecting the use of the multiplier method in determining compensation. Additionally, the Court urged stricter action against negligent medical establishments and recommended the enactment of laws to regulate private hospitals and nursing homes. [para 4]
RELATED Blog
0 comments