Supreme Court Restores ₹5 Lakh Compensation in Medical Negligence Case Involving Retained Surgical Needle

In Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 265 SC), the Supreme Court restored the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Forum to a patient who suffered prolonged pain after a surgical needle was found in her abdomen following an appendectomy. The Court held that the compensation granted by the appellate consumer fora was unjustifiably low despite concurrent findings of medical negligence and deficient post-operative care. 

The appellant underwent an appendectomy at Suket Hospital in June 2005. Soon after the surgery, she continued to experience severe pain near the surgical site and underwent treatment at various hospitals over the next four years. Eventually, doctors at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, discovered a 2.5 cm surgical needle lodged in her abdomen, which had to be removed through another surgery. The appellant filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence and sought compensation of ₹19.80 lakh. The District Consumer Forum awarded ₹5 lakh as compensation. On appeal, the State Consumer Commission reduced the compensation to ₹1 lakh, which was later enhanced to ₹2 lakh by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Dissatisfied with the reduced compensation, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the compensation awarded by the consumer fora was adequate in light of the prolonged pain, deficient medical treatment and established negligence on the part of the hospital and the treating doctor. 

The Supreme Court observed that all the consumer fora had consistently found the hospital and the treating doctor negligent and had held the post-operative care to be deficient. The Court noted that:

•The appellant suffered continuous pain for more than five years due to negligent treatment. 

•The hospital failed to properly investigate the non-healing surgical wound despite repeated complaints. 

•The compensation awarded by the State Commission and the NCDRC was disproportionately low considering the nature of the suffering and the prolonged litigation. 

•Compensation in medical negligence cases must be fair, just and adequate, keeping in view the object of the Consumer Protection Act. The Court also examined the Eggshell Skull Rule, which had been relied upon by the NCDRC. It held that the rule applies only where the injured person has a pre-existing medical condition or vulnerability that aggravates the consequences of the wrong. Since there was no evidence that the appellant suffered from any such pre-existing condition, the rule had no application to the facts of the case. 

The Supreme Court:

•Allowed the appeal. 

•Set aside the orders of the State Consumer Commission and the NCDRC. 

•Restored the District Consumer Forum's award of ₹5 lakh as compensation. 

•Directed payment of simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of the District Forum's award until payment. 

•Awarded litigation costs of ₹50,000 to the appellant.

•Directed the respondents to make payment within four weeks. 

The judgment reiterates that compensation awarded in medical negligence cases must adequately reflect the pain, suffering and hardship endured by the patient. It also clarifies the limited application of the Eggshell Skull Rule, holding that it can be invoked only where the victim has a proven pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition. The decision reinforces the consumer-friendly nature of the Consumer Protection Act and underscores that courts must award meaningful compensation where medical negligence and deficiency in service are established.