Date:18/09/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/18/stories/2008091860060400.htm
Back

New Delhi

Supreme Court reserves verdict against NIMS

J. Venkatesan


A paraplegic files appeal seeking

Rs. 7.57 crore compensation from NIMS for medical negligence


New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on an appeal from a paraplegic claiming a compensation of Rs. 7.57 crore from the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad for medical negligence.

A three-judge Bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice H.S. Bedi and Justice G.S. Singhvi reserved the verdict at the conclusion of arguments from the hospital and the victim, who presented his case himself sitting in a wheelchair (in the last two hearings). Today his father represented him.

In the last two hearings, the court was moved by the plight of the appellant, Prasanth S. Dhananka who became a paraplegic after surgery at the hospital.

He sought Rs. 7.57 crore as compensation from the hospital as against Rs. 15.5 lakh awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. While the hospital filed an appeal against this order, he filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Curative surgery

According to Mr. Prasanth, he 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). Though he was admitted for a diagnostic surgery, a curative surgery was performed without his consent and the tumour was removed.

But, post-surgery he became a paraplegic -- that is 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.

Hospital’s contention

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 claim was not supported by any material and the Commission had considered irrelevant factors in awarding the compensation. It sought quashing of the Commission’s order.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu