Dr. Jaswinder D/O S.Surat Singh 48 Rani-ka-bagh, Gali No.4, Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Home Department Government - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1040798
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-06-2013
AppellantDr. Jaswinder D/O S.Surat Singh 48 Rani-ka-bagh, Gali No.4,
RespondentUnion of India Through Secretary Home Department Government
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) date of decision:06. 05.2013 dr. jaswinder d/o s.surat singh, 48, rani-ka-bagh, gali no.4, amritsar...appellant versus union of india, through secretary, home department, government of india, new delhi, and others....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan ---- present: mr.deepak suri, advocate, for the appellant. mr.rajiv sharma, advocate, for the respondents. ---- k.kannan, j. (oral) 1. the appeal is enhancement of compensation for facial injuries and the fractures of leg suffered by the claimant on the ground that the assessment made by the tribunal at ` 1 lakh is grossly low. the petitioner was a medical graduate, having passed her mbbs degree and the evidence was that she had an entrance exam and interview on 20.01.1991. however, on account of the accident, she could not appear and she could not secure admission immediately. she was under prolonged treatment for the injuries which she had suffered on her face that resulted in loss of her three teeth, impairment in vision, constant headache on account of the fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) -2- injury in the brain and shortening of the limb that had been caused by the fracture in her leg. her contention was that with the fracture of the nasal bone, her face got disfigured and though there was a prospect of imminent marriage just before the accident, it was dropped and she had been leading her life of a spinster without marriage thereafter.”2. the tribunal, while assessing compensation, took note of the fact that she gained employment 6 months later and averaging the loss of income at `5,000/-; provided for loss of income at `30,000/- towards medical bills produced before the court; `5,000/- for pain and suffering; `41,000/- for the disability assessed at 20% and `3,000/- for damage to moped.”3. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there had been extensive injuries suffered by her and she had prolonged treatment with several doctors.all of whom had been examined. aw1 was dr. ravi kapoor, who was the professor at the government dental college & hospital, who spoke about the fact that she had fracture of the right lower canine and right upper central and lateral incisors.he gave evidence to the effect that there were scar marks still visible on her face and for the loss of three teeth, she could have re-fixed them at the cost of `4,000/- per crown and they could not help her functionally for a mastication, but they could have only cosmetic value. pw5 was a surgeon, who had noted fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) -3- down extensive facial injuries and the fracture of the right tibia and patella and fracture of the nasal bone with fracture of base of skull. he also spoke about the serious and permanent disfigurement caused because of fractures and injuries on her face, lips, forehead and nose. he also said that on account of the fracture of the skull base, she could have a persistent pain in her head for the rest of her life. pw6 was a senior lecturer of ent department, who spoke about the fact that her injuries cannot be cured permanently and deformity had been caused by the injuries on her nos.and the septum suffered a deviation to the left side. the nasal patency had been reduced on the left side. pw7 was a lecturer of ophthalmology, who gave evidence to the effect that she had a blurring in vision of both eyes and on fundus examination, he found that the bilateral pappioedema, more so to the left side as compared to the right. he found “macular degeneration with pagment stippling”. and that it was due to macular haemorrhage. this, according to him, was a permanent disability. he spoke about the fact that the petitioner was under treatment for a year. pw9 and 11 were other doctors.who had treated her at the medical college and hospital, faridkot and sgbt hospital at amritsar. she was herself examined as pw13 who spoke to the fact that she had been operated thrice and even after treatment, she cannot see properly; her face had been disfigured; she could not breathe properly; she could not eat properly with loss of teeth and fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) -4- fracture of jaw bone and she cannot walk also properly with the shortening of the limb. she would state that she remained admitted in the hospital for about 3 months and still she was getting treatment as outdoor patient from the hospital. she spoke about the loss of income that had been occasioned on account of the prolonged treatment by evidence to the effect that she was earning about `10,000/- per month and she lost the income during the period of treatment. she could not do her private practice due to ill-health and she had to therefore join government service, which, according to her, was again a further loss. she also spoke about the fact that she could not compete for her md entrance on account of the injuries suffered at the time of the accident. she had stated that she was a bright person academically and she had gained admission in general category. she stated that a proposal for marriage was turned down due to scars on her face and limping in the leg.”4. on an overall consideration, it could be seen that the petitioner has come by very serious harm by the accident injuries. for a doctor to treat the patient must be healthy and must also be seen as healthy. a doctor who is sick cannot evoke any confidence in a patient and she had therefore certainly lost a fair amount of esteem in the cosmetic disfigurement of her face and several disabilities that struck her from the crown to feet literally. the assessment to compensation by the courts below has been grossly fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) -5- inadequate. apart from the heads of compensation assessed, i would enhance the compensation under the head of medicines from `21,000/- assessed already to `50,000/- taking note of the treatment which she was having for more than a year. she had lost her three teeth and through a specific evidence of aw1 that cost of denture could be at least `4,000/- per crown, i will provide therefore an additional amount of `12,000/-. she had lost her teeth and on account of fracture in the jaw and artificial dentures that she had, the evidence was that she could not masticate properly. she would have therefore required extra nourishment and special diet, which i estimate at `20,000/- for the treatment that she had been given to her at various places for which 7 doctors treatment spoken to in evidence. i will provide also for transportation expenses at `20,000/-. the pain and suffering, in this case, has been grossly undervalued at `5,000/-. having regard to the fact of injuries on her face which are very sensitive, i will enhance it to `50,000/-. for the disability caused at 20%, it must be seen that it had not merely resulted in the loss of amenities which i would estimate at `50,000/-, but i would also take the disability as resulting in a like percentage of loss of earning capacity. taking the average income over a span of life at `10,000/- per month and considering the fact that she was a medical professional, i will apply 20% on that as resulting in loss of earning capacity and apply a multiplier of 18 and take the loss of fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) -6- earning capacity at `4,32,000/- (10,000/- x 20% x 12 x 18).the petitioner had claimed that she had lost her prospect of admission into md cours.immediately and i will assess the loss at a further sum of `25,000/- and assess the loss of prospect of marriage and the cosmetic value for disfigurement of face of an young woman at an additional amount of `1,50,000/-. i proceed to tabulate the same as follows:- date of accident:13. 01.1991 age period of hospitalization:13. 01.1991 to 13.03.1991 + 1 month treatment occupation & income : doctor heads of claim tribunal high court sr.not amount ` amount ` 1. loss of income from 30,000 30,000 2. medical expenses:21”50. 000 i) medicines ii) hospital charges (loss of teeth) 12,000 iii) attendant charges 10,000 iv special diet 20,000 3. transport 20,000 4. pain & suffering-per fracture/per surgery 5,000 50,000 5. disability in percentage/loss of amenities 20% 20% 6. reduction in life expectancy/loss of 41,000 50,000 amenities 7. loss of earning power in percentage 20% 20% 8. income x % of loss of earning power x 4,32,000 multiplier (10,000x20%x12x18) 9. loss of prospect of marriage/special 3,000 1,50,000/- damages 10. loss due to delayed admission to md 25,000/- cours.total 1,00,000 8,49,000/- rounded off to ` 8,50,000/- 5. the amount in excess of what has been determined already by the tribunal will attract interest at 7.5% from the date of fao no.1333 of 1995 (o&m) -7- petition till date of payment. the liability shall be in the same manner as assessed by the tribunal.”6. the award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (k.kannan) judge 06 05.2013 sanjeev
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision:

06. 05.2013 Dr.

Jaswinder d/o S.Surat Singh, 48, Rani-Ka-Bagh, Gali No.4, Amritsar...Appellant versus Union of India, through Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi, and others....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

---- K.Kannan, J.

(Oral) 1.

The appeal is enhancement of compensation for facial injuries and the fractures of leg suffered by the claimant on the ground that the assessment made by the Tribunal at ` 1 lakh is grossly low.

The petitioner was a medical graduate, having passed her MBBS degree and the evidence was that she had an entrance exam and interview on 20.01.1991.

However, on account of the accident, she could not appear and she could not secure admission immediately.

She was under prolonged treatment for the injuries which she had suffered on her face that resulted in loss of her three teeth, impairment in vision, constant headache on account of the FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) -2- injury in the brain and shortening of the limb that had been caused by the fracture in her leg.

Her contention was that with the fracture of the nasal bone, her face got disfigured and though there was a prospect of imminent marriage just before the accident, it was dropped and she had been leading her life of a spinster without marriage thereafter.”

2. The Tribunal, while assessing compensation, took note of the fact that she gained employment 6 months later and averaging the loss of income at `5,000/-; provided for loss of income at `30,000/- towards medical bills produced before the Court; `5,000/- for pain and suffering; `41,000/- for the disability assessed at 20% and `3,000/- for damage to moped.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there had been extensive injuries suffered by her and she had prolonged treatment with several doctORS.all of whom had been examined.

AW1 was Dr.

Ravi Kapoor, who was the Professor at the Government Dental College & Hospital, who spoke about the fact that she had fracture of the right lower canine and right upper central and lateral incisORS.He gave evidence to the effect that there were scar marks still visible on her face and for the loss of three teeth, she could have re-fixed them at the cost of `4,000/- per crown and they could not help her functionally for a mastication, but they could have only cosmetic value.

PW5 was a Surgeon, who had noted FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) -3- down extensive facial injuries and the fracture of the right tibia and patella and fracture of the nasal bone with fracture of base of skull.

He also spoke about the serious and permanent disfigurement caused because of fractures and injuries on her face, lips, forehead and nose.

He also said that on account of the fracture of the skull base, she could have a persistent pain in her head for the rest of her life.

PW6 was a senior Lecturer of ENT Department, who spoke about the fact that her injuries cannot be cured permanently and deformity had been caused by the injuries on her Nos.and the septum suffered a deviation to the left side.

The nasal patency had been reduced on the left side.

PW7 was a Lecturer of Ophthalmology, who gave evidence to the effect that she had a blurring in vision of both eyes and on fundus examination, he found that the bilateral pappioedema, more so to the left side as compared to the right.

He found “macular degeneration with pagment stippling”.

and that it was due to macular haemorrhage.

This, according to him, was a permanent disability.

He spoke about the fact that the petitioner was under treatment for a year.

PW9 and 11 were other doctORS.who had treated her at the Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and SGBT Hospital at Amritsar.

She was herself examined as PW13 who spoke to the fact that she had been operated thrice and even after treatment, she cannot see properly; her face had been disfigured; she could not breathe properly; she could not eat properly with loss of teeth and FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) -4- fracture of jaw bone and she cannot walk also properly with the shortening of the limb.

She would state that she remained admitted in the hospital for about 3 months and still she was getting treatment as outdoor patient from the hospital.

She spoke about the loss of income that had been occasioned on account of the prolonged treatment by evidence to the effect that she was earning about `10,000/- per month and she lost the income during the period of treatment.

She could not do her private practice due to ill-health and she had to therefore join government service, which, according to her, was again a further loss.

She also spoke about the fact that she could not compete for her MD entrance on account of the injuries suffered at the time of the accident.

She had stated that she was a bright person academically and she had gained admission in general category.

She stated that a proposal for marriage was turned down due to scars on her face and limping in the leg.”

4. On an overall consideration, it could be seen that the petitioner has come by very serious harm by the accident injuries.

For a doctor to treat the patient must be healthy and must also be seen as healthy.

A doctor who is sick cannot evoke any confidence in a patient and she had therefore certainly lost a fair amount of esteem in the cosmetic disfigurement of her face and several disabilities that struck her from the crown to feet literally.

The assessment to compensation by the Courts below has been grossly FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) -5- inadequate.

Apart from the heads of compensation assessed, I would enhance the compensation under the head of medicines from `21,000/- assessed already to `50,000/- taking note of the treatment which she was having for more than a year.

She had lost her three teeth and through a specific evidence of AW1 that cost of denture could be at least `4,000/- per crown, I will provide therefore an additional amount of `12,000/-.

She had lost her teeth and on account of fracture in the jaw and artificial dentures that she had, the evidence was that she could not masticate properly.

She would have therefore required extra nourishment and special diet, which I estimate at `20,000/- for the treatment that she had been given to her at various places for which 7 doctors treatment spoken to in evidence.

I will provide also for transportation expenses at `20,000/-.

The pain and suffering, in this case, has been grossly undervalued at `5,000/-.

Having regard to the fact of injuries on her face which are very sensitive, I will enhance it to `50,000/-.

For the disability caused at 20%, it must be seen that it had not merely resulted in the loss of amenities which I would estimate at `50,000/-, but I would also take the disability as resulting in a like percentage of loss of earning capacity.

Taking the average income over a span of life at `10,000/- per month and considering the fact that she was a medical professional, I will apply 20% on that as resulting in loss of earning capacity and apply a multiplier of 18 and take the loss of FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) -6- earning capacity at `4,32,000/- (10,000/- x 20% x 12 x 18).The petitioner had claimed that she had lost her prospect of admission into MD CouRs.immediately and I will assess the loss at a further sum of `25,000/- and assess the loss of prospect of marriage and the cosmetic value for disfigurement of face of an young woman at an additional amount of `1,50,000/-.

I proceed to tabulate the same as follows:- Date of accident:

13. 01.1991 Age Period of hospitalization:

13. 01.1991 to 13.03.1991 + 1 month treatment Occupation & income : Doctor Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.not Amount ` Amount ` 1.

Loss of income from 30,000 30,000 2.

Medical expenses:

21”

50. 000 i) Medicines ii) Hospital charges (loss of teeth) 12,000 iii) Attendant charges 10,000 iv Special diet 20,000 3.

Transport 20,000 4.

Pain & suffering-per fracture/per surgery 5,000 50,000 5.

Disability in percentage/loss of amenities 20% 20% 6.

Reduction in life expectancy/loss of 41,000 50,000 amenities 7.

Loss of earning power in percentage 20% 20% 8.

Income x % of loss of earning power x 4,32,000 multiplier (10,000x20%x12x18) 9.

Loss of prospect of marriage/special 3,000 1,50,000/- damages 10.

Loss due to delayed admission to MD 25,000/- couRs.Total 1,00,000 8,49,000/- rounded off to ` 8,50,000/- 5.

The amount in excess of what has been determined already by the Tribunal will attract interest at 7.5% from the date of FAO No.1333 of 1995 (O&M) -7- petition till date of payment.

The liability shall be in the same manner as assessed by the Tribunal.”

6. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06 05.2013 sanjeev