Order Name: Manda Nirmala Kumari Vs. Senior State Medical Commissioner
Case No.: F.A. No. 2515/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, has made it clear that compensation and punitive damages vary based on the specifics of each case.
Case Background
The complainant, a nurse from Hyderabad and a member of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), sought financial help from ESIC for her daughter’s blood cancer treatment. This treatment required a costly Bone Marrow Transplantation (BMT) at Tata Memorial Centre. Although the Senior State Medical Commissioner issued a letter of credit, Tata Memorial Centre required the full amount upfront. Repeated requests for approval of the deposit were ignored by the Medical Commissioner of ESIC, causing delays.
In desperation, the complainant 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. 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 sided with the complainant and directed ESIC to pay Rs. 5,00,000 plus Rs. 10,000 in costs. Unsatisfied with this decision, the complainant appealed to the National Commission.
ESIC’s Defense
ESIC argued that delays occurred due to an investigation into the complainant’s eligibility. Once eligibility was confirmed, the advance payment was sanctioned. However, procedural delays and ongoing investigations prevented timely action. Despite efforts to expedite the process, the complainant’s daughter passed away before the funds were released. ESIC claimed they had already spent a significant amount on her treatment at various hospitals and offered apologies for the delays, which were attributed to procedural complexities involving multiple states.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that the complainant’s eligibility to receive Rs.50.75 lakhs from ESIC was not disputed. The commission agreed with the State Commission’s findings that there was a deficiency in service by 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 mental agony suffered by the complainant.
The commission referred to several legal precedents to support enhancing the compensation. In Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court held that "compensation" includes actual or expected loss as well as physical, mental, or emotional suffering. The Consumer Protection Act 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 to compensate the individual and 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 depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The National Commission agreed with the appeal and modified the State Commission’s order. Considering 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, which was the amount initially sanctioned for the daughter’s treatment.
Takeaway
This judgment underscores the importance of timely action in healthcare-related financial assistance. The commission’s decision to enhance compensation highlights the serious consequences of procedural delays and the need for accountability within service organizations.
