Background Matrix 

In the case of Global Hospital v. P. Manjula, Both parties have filed two first appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the decision made by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The initial complainants appealed for an increase in the compensation awarded by TSCDRC from Rs 18 lakhs to Rs 40.10 lakhs along with interest, while the opposing parties before TSCDRC requested the setting aside of the contested judgement. At Global Hospital, a heart stroke sufferer was advised to have a bypass because the oxygen supply was erratic, which led to blood clotting in the blood arteries bringing blood to the brain. Brain malfunction, unconsciousness, and coma were the results of this. The patient passed away after being put on a ventilator. The TSCDRC received a consumer complaint demanding compensation in the amount of Rs 40 lakhs. The TSCDRC dismissed the case against the surgeon and permitted the hospital to compensate the complainant Rs 18 lakhs, fewer fees of Rs 5,000.

Contention From Parties 

The hospital and the doctor, however, asserted that the deceased received the proper care and treatment and refuted any allegations of malpractice. 

The complainants argued that the operating personnel acted with extreme carelessness, the compensation only amounted to about Rs 12 lakh because the remainder was given to the hospital for the deceased’s care, following hospitalisation fees, and other costs.

Analysis of Court Order 

The stated ruling was slightly changed by Dr Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member of NCDRC, who agreed with the TSCDRC’s conclusions about the hospital’s vicarious culpability and the amount of compensation set by the Commission.

The Commission examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the lack of contractual privity made the hospital, not the doctor, vicariously accountable for the institution’s failure to provide adequate care. The judgement was approved by the Commission, which also agreed to an Rs 18 lakh settlement instead of a Rs 40 lakh one. But because there wasn’t enough time to comply, the Commission added an annual interest rate of 9%. The cost of Rs 5000 given to the complainants was increased to Rs 30,000, with interest starting to accrue after one month at a rate of 12% per year.

CASE NAME – Global Hospital v. P. Manjula, First Appeal No. 1722 of 2016