The district consumer forum’s compensation of Rs 5 lakhs in a medical negligence case was reinstated by the Supreme Court on April 23, underscoring the improper application of the legal principle known as the “Eggshell Skull” by the state and federal consumer courts.
What is the ‘Eggshell Skull’ rule?
The common law notion known as the “Eggshell Skull Rule” is utilised in civil action. This means that the offender would be responsible for any harm that could worsen due to the injured party’s unique circumstances, which the offender would not have been aware of. Simply put, even if the victim had an exceptionally delicate skull or an “Eggshell” for a skull, the defendant would still be liable for whatever harm the victim sustained when he struck him on the head.
The rule applies when a claimant seeks additional compensation for damages above what the defendant might reasonably have been expected to inflict.
The most common source for the eggshell skull rule’s beginnings is the Wisconsin case Vosburg v. Putney, which was decided in 1891. A 12-year-old child named Putney kicked a 14-year-old boy named Vosburg in the shin at a Waukesha, Wisconsin, school. Putney had no idea that Vosburg had previously sustained an injury to the same area of his body. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the kick “caused his (Vosburg’s) leg to become lame,” aggravating the damage.
Justice William P. Lyon ruled that although Putney had no intention of hurting this much, the kick was considered an “unlawful act” because it happened after the teacher had called the class to order. Ten years after the Putney ruling, the English court system’s King’s Bench granted damages to a pregnant client who became seriously unwell and suffered a terrible shock when the defendant’s servant “negligently drove a pair-horse van into the public house,” where the client was working behind the bar. She said that as a result, she gave birth to a child who “was born an idiot” prematurely.
The court stated, “It is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all if he had not had a fragile skull or a fragile heart.” The guy could have been ran over or otherwise negligently wounded in his body.
What was the case?
A Jyoti Devi underwent an appendix removal in a hospital in the Mandi area of Himachal Pradesh in 2005. Her stomach pain persisted even after the procedure went according to plan. What happened next was a four-year journey that involved multiple hospital stays. In the end, physicians at Chandigarh’s PostGraduate Institute of Medical Science discovered that “a 2.5 cm foreign body (needle)” had become lodged in her abdomen and required to be surgically removed.
When Jyoti filed a complaint with the district consumer forum, the hospital in Mandi paid her Rs 5 lakhs for medical malpractice. The hospital challenged the ruling, though, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) increased the payout to Rs 2 lakh after the state consumer forum cut it to Rs 1 lakh. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it upheld the district forum’s compensation decision and declared that the other two courts had used the eggshell skull rule while still awarding a “paltry” and “unjust” amount.
What did the SC rule?
The Supreme Court ruled that Jyoti’s case would not fall under the eggshell skull rule since there is no evidence in her file of a “pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition, because of which the victim may have suffered ‘unusual damage’.” The NCDRC had only stated the norm, the court observed, and had not explained “how this rule applies to the present case”. According to the verdict, Jyoti had been suffering for more than five years, and the lawsuit took more than ten years to resolve, both of which made increasing the compensation necessary.
