Recently, the Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to a patient who experienced hoarseness in his voice as a result of medical errors made by doctors during the anesthesia procedure.

The patient, who is now deceased, sought compensation from the Manipal Hospital for the botched operation that caused him to become hoarse. The claim was for Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only). But without providing any justification, the District Forum came to a rough and ready number of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) that would be payable as compensation to the appellant.
The National Consumer District Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) kept track of the patient’s reward from the district forum. The Bench made up of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah ordered the hospital to pay compensation totaling Rs. 10 Lacs with interest in contrast to the Rs. 5 Lacs that the District Forum had awarded, after concluding that the District Forum had neglected to take into account all of the aforementioned factors in order to determine the appropriate compensation that should have been given to the patient.
“Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the District Forum ought to have taken all the aforesaid aspects into consideration for arriving at a rightful compensation payable to the deceased which in the instant case, has not been done.”

The deceased patient who filed the appeal claimed that the hospital administration’s negligence in assigning a crucial task to a trainee anesthetist resulted in the patient’s left vocal cord being paralyzed because the double lumen tube was inserted incorrectly when the patient was receiving anesthesia for surgery. After the procedure, the patient’s voice had become hoarse.
The appellant patient also argued that his illness prevented him from being promoted in his position, and he kept working in the same position without advancement from 2003 until the end of 2015 when he passed away.
The respondent Hospital contended that the District Forum erred in tossing out the testimony of the physicians who said that administering anesthesia via a double-lumen tube was perfectly acceptable.
“Mere reliance on medical literature would not be sufficient to exonerate the Hospital from its duty of ensuring that the Head of the Department, Anaesthesia ought to have inserted the Double Lumen Tube. Instead, he was not available and the task was delegated to a trainee anaesthetist.” the court observed while disagreeing with the contention of the respondent Hospital.

Accordingly, the court directed that the compensation awarded by the District Forum be doubled from ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) with simple interest calculated @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is paid, subject to the adjustment of the amounts already released in favour of the appellant patient.

Case Title: J. DOUGLAS LUIZ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VERSUS MANIPAL HOSPITAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1700 OF 2024