IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.64 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3146 of 2007)

A.U. Sukumaran      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

N.S.D. Raju and Ors.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

The  appellant-complainant  filed  a  petition  before  the  Kerala  State

Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission (for short,  ‘the State  Commission’)  for

award of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,96,500/- by alleging that due to negligence

of the respondent-Cochin Hospital and doctors, he had lost vision in one eye and was

forced to seek voluntary retirement from service.  He claimed Rs.13,000/- as cost of

treatment, Rs.7,500/- towards transportation charges, Rs.4,32,000/- as loss of income

due to voluntary retirement, Rs.1,44,000/- which he would have earned by continuing

in service, Rs.2,00,000/- by way of damages for pain and suffering, Rs.5,00,000/- by

way of damages for mental agony to himself, wife and children and Rs.1,00,000/- as

damages  for  disfigurement.   Respondent  Nos.1  to  3  contested  the  complaint  by

asserting that it was not a case of medical negligence and that the claim made by the

appellant was exorbitant.   

....2/-

- 2 -

The State Commission, after considering the pleadings of the parties and

record produced by them, held that the doctors who performed the surgery are not

guilty of negligence and the loss of vision may have been caused due to infection. In

the opinion of the State Commission, the hospital authorities may have been negligent

in maintaining hygiene and this may have led to infection.  The State Commission

then observed that the complainant has not been able to prove that he suffered any

pecuniary  loss  and  awarded  Rs.40,000/-  as  compensation,  Rs.5,000/-  towards

expenditure  and  Rs.1,000/-  by  way  of  cost.  On  appeal,  the  National  Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the National Commission’) criticized the

observation of the State Commission that the complainant could not prove that he

had suffered pecuniary loss and observed that loss of one eye for the entire life was an

extremely  serious  matter  which  deserved  a  more sensitive  approach  by  the  State

Commission. The National Commission held that the appellant has suffered due to

gross  negligence  of  the  hospital  authorities  and  enhanced  the  compensation  from

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of treatment from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.13,000/-. The

National Commission directed that the amount be paid to the appellant-complainant

within six weeks, failing which he shall be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per

cent per annum.  Feeling dissatisfied, the complainant has filed this appeal by special

leave.   

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the appellant

suffered  loss  of  vision  in  one  eye  due  to  negligence  of  the  hospital  authorities  to

maintain

....3/-

- 3 -

hygiene,  which  led  to  infection.  This  finding  of  the  State  Commission  was  not

challenged by the respondents before the National  Commission and, therefore, the

same will be deemed to have become final. The disability suffered by the appellant is

of permanent nature. The appellant, who was in government service, was forced to

take pre-mature retirement nine years before the date of superannuation apparently

because he could not effectively discharge his duties.  At the relevant time his salary

was Rs.6400/-. On retirement, the appellant was given pension at the rate of Rs.2500/-

per month.  Thus, the difference in salary and retirement benefit was Rs.3,900/- per

month.  After taking into consideration the expected increase in salary, the appellant

claimed compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- in lieu of the loss of salary. The respondents

have not disputed the fact that the appellant had sought voluntary retirement and

consequently,  he  suffered  pecuniary  loss.   The  State  Commission  awarded  paltry

amount  of  Rs.40,000/-  without  even  considering  the  appellant’s  plea  that  he  was

forced to seek voluntary retirement nine years before the age of superannuation. The

National  Commission  did  enhance  the  compensation  to  Rs.1,00,000/-  but  without

adverting  to  the  pecuniary  loss  suffered  by  the  appellant  due  to  pre-mature

retirement from service. In our considered view, the monetary loss suffered by the

appellant furnishes valid basis for award of enhanced compensation to him.   

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with costs, impugned order is

modified  and  the  management  of  Cochin  Hospital  is  directed  to  pay  enhanced

compensation  of  Rs.4,32,000/-  to  the  appellant  in  addition  to  enhanced  cost  of

treatment i.e. Rs.13,000/-. The appellant shall get cost of  litigation  which  is assessed

at Rs.50,000/-. The entire

....4/-

- 4 -

amount shall be paid to the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of

copy of this order, failing which the hospital authority shall be liable to pay interest at

the rate of twelve per cent per annum with effect from the date of this order till the

date of actual payment.  The Management shall be entitled to deduct the amount, if

any, already paid to the appellant pursuant to the orders of the State and/or National

Commission.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, January 09, 2009.