The Supreme Court, which enhanced the compensation to a girl for loss of vision due to medical negligence from mere Rs five lakh to Rs 1.72 crore, considered inflation and escalating cost of treatment required by her in future.
A bench of justices J S Khehar and S A Bobde has observed that Sharanya, now over 18 years old, had been rendered blind for life because of the negligence and "blindness can have terrible consequences" which cannot be really compensated in monetary terms.
"There is no doubt that in the future Sharanya would require further medical attention and would have to incur costs on medicines and possible surgery. It can be reasonably said that the blindness has put Sharanya at a great disadvantage in her pursuit for making a good living to care for herself," it said.
The bench, which enhanced the compensation amount of Rs five lakh awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to Rs 1.72 crore, took into account inflation, saying it "certainly erodes the value of money."
"Having perused the various heads of expenditure very carefully, we observe that the medical costs for Sharanya's treatment will not remain static, but are likely to rise substantially in the future years," it said.
Noting that "impact of inflation affects us all", the bench said, "Sharanya's present age is about 18-and-a-half years. If her life expectancy is taken to be about 70 years, for the next 51 years, the amount of expenditure, at the same rate will work out to Rs 82,95,048 (taking into account the annual medical expenditure of Rs 1,62,648)."
"It is therefore imperative that we account for inflation to ensure that the present value of compensation awarded for future medical costs is not unduly diluted, for no fault of the victim of negligence. The value of today's rupee should be determined in the future," the bench said.
The apex court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs 1.72 crore to the girl observing that the aggrieved person should get that sum of money which would put her in the same position if she had not sustained the wrong.
"It must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financial loss suffered due to the event, the pain and suffering undergone and the liability that he/she would have to incur due to the disability caused by the event," the bench said, while also considering the loss which the girl and her parents had to suffer.
