Tag: Tort Law

Supreme Court Says Failure in Treatment Isn’t Always Negligence :A Landmark Ruling for Doctors
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says Failure in Treatment Isn’t Always Negligence :A Landmark Ruling for Doctors

The Supreme Court held that consumer fora cannot travel beyond the pleadings to construct a new case for the complainant. It emphasized that medical negligence cannot be presumed merely because of an adverse treatment outcome. The Court ruled that the NCDRC overstepped its jurisdiction by basing its finding on antenatal care negligence, which was never pleaded by the complainant, and set aside the order. Facts Of The Case: A patient, Charanpreet Kaur, died from atonic Post-Partum Haemorrhage (PPH) hours after delivering a stillborn child at Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh, under the care of Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. Her husband, Manmeet Singh Mattewal, filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence specifically in the post-delivery treatment. He contended the nursing home was il...
Read More
Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

In a significant ruling on motor accident claims, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles from Pranay Sethi and Somwati. The Court established that the income of a deceased, even if not fully substantiated, cannot be assessed lower than the notional income of an unskilled labourer, with due consideration for annual increments. It upheld the application of standard multipliers, future prospects, and clarified that loss of consortium is payable to spouses, children, and dependent parents. Facts Of The Case: In a tragic accident on July 25, 2010, four friends from Bijapur on a pilgrimage to Shirdi lost their lives when their car was involved in a head-on collision with a rashly and negligently driven goods lorry on NH-13. The case concerns one of the deceased, a qualified pharmacist, wh...
Read More
Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's finding that the death was not a direct consequence of the motor accident injuries. The legal requirement of establishing a direct causal nexus between the accident and the death was not satisfied, as the medical evidence indicated the fatality was a possible after-effect of the surgery and the victim's pre-existing conditions, not the injuries themselves. Facts Of The Case: On April 29, 2006, an Excise Guard died following injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The accident occurred when the motorcycle he was riding collided with another motorcycle. He was initially hospitalized from April 29 to May 3, 2006, for injuries including a compound fracture of multiple metatarsals in his right foot and a fracture in his l...
Read More
Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases

The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability is a distinct head from loss of income and cannot be denied merely because the latter is awarded. It further ruled that future medical and attendant charges must account for the victim's full life expectancy, not a restricted period. The Court also reinstated compensation for loss of enjoyment of life and family's pain and suffering, emphasizing these are legitimate and independent heads of claim. Facts Of The Case: On July 3, 2011, the appellant, Kavin, a 21-year-old arts student, was travelling as a passenger in an Omni bus from Coimbatore to Chennai. At around 10:15 PM, the bus, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. The accident resulted in grievous inj...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death

The Supreme Court clarified that in claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, a notional income for a deceased child need not be limited to the figures in Schedule II (for Section 163-A claims). It reinstated the Tribunal's calculation, confirming no deduction for personal expenses is required in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident involving a 10-year-old boy who was fatally struck by a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation while he was cycling to school. The parents of the deceased child filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, acknowledging the undisputed negligence of the bus driver, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,55,000. This calculation was based on attributing a notional monthly...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, applying the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, held that a self-employed person, even one working abroad, is entitled to an addition of 40% of their established income towards future prospects when computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and conventional heads as per the standardized formula mandated by the Constitution Bench. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on 31st August 2007 at approximately 3:00 a.m. at Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal. The deceased, Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national, was travelling in a car from Delhi to Hoshiarpur when it was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Swaraj Mazd...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence apportionment to 20% on the claimant, 50% on the car driver, and 30% on the bus driver. It enhanced compensation by revising the notional income calculation for an engineering student and reinstated attendant charges, emphasizing just compensation for 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: On January 7, 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a friend on the pillion. A car ahead, driven by respondent no. 2, suddenly applied its brakes on the highway because the driver's pregnant wife felt a vomiting sensation. This caused the appellant to collide with the rear of the car and fall onto the road. Subsequently, a bus, insured by respondent no. 1, which was coming from behind, ran over the appell...
Read More