The Quantum Of Compensation Should Be Based On Facts And Circumstances Of Each Case: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, a nurse in Hyderabad and a member of ESIC sought financial assistance from ESIC for her daughter's blood cancer treatment, which required a costly Bone Marrow Transplantation (BMT) at Tata Memorial Centre. Although the Senior State Medical Commissioner (OP-1) issued a letter of credit, Tata Memorial Centre required the full amount to be deposited before proceeding. Despite repeated requests, the Medical Commissioner of ESIC failed to approve the deposit in time, leading to delays. The complainant, in desperation, approached higher authorities, including the Prime Minister and the National Human Rights Commission. As her daughter's condition worsened, she filed a petition in the High Court, which ordered ESIC to release the funds. However, the ESIC ignored the court's directive, forcing her daughter to undergo chemotherapy at Apollo Hospital, where she eventually passed away. The complainant then filed a contempt case against ESIC for defying the court order. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the ESIC to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant, together with costs of Rs. 10,000. Dissatisfied with the State Commission's order, the complainant appealed before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The ESIC argued that although the treatment was approved, delays occurred due to an investigation into the complainant's eligibility. After confirming the eligibility, the advance payment was sanctioned, but procedural delays, including ongoing investigations, prevented timely action. Despite efforts to expedite the process, the complainant's daughter passed away before the funds were released. The ESIC had already spent a significant amount on her treatment at various hospitals. It was contended that apologies were offered for the delays attributed to procedural complexities involving multiple states.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the eligibility of the complainant to receive Rs.50.75 lakhs from the ESIC, which was eventually sanctioned and prepared for disbursement, was not in dispute. The commission affirmed the findings of the State Commission regarding the deficiency in service by the ESIC and its officials, entitling the complainant to compensation. However, the Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the State Commission was deemed inadequate, considering the circumstances and the significant mental agony suffered by the complainant. The commission referred to several case laws to support the decision to enhance compensation. In Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the term “compensation” has a broad connotation, encompassing actual or expected loss as well as compensation for physical, mental, or emotional suffering. The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) empowers the commission to award compensation to redress any injustice done. Similarly, in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, the Supreme Court emphasized that Consumer Forums must award damages that compensate the individual and aim to change the service provider's attitude. The commission also cited Suneja Towers (P) Ltd. v. Anita Merchant, where the Supreme Court held that the quantum of compensation and punitive damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court noted that awarding compound interest is neither envisaged by the statute nor supported by any contractual terms or usage between the parties.

The National Commission allowed the appeal and modified the State Commission's order. Taking into account the facts and the delay that led to the untimely death of the complainant's daughter, the commission enhanced the compensation to Rs.50.75 lakhs, the amount initially sanctioned for the daughter's treatment.

Case Title: Manda Nirmala Kumari Vs. Senior State Medical Commissioner

Case Number: F.A. No. 2515/2017