The Supreme Court doubled the compensation to Rs.10 lakhs to a patient who developed hoarseness in voice after a trainee doctor administered him anesthesia.

The appellant who is the legal representative of the original complainant has challenged the common impugned judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi whereby the revision petitions filed by the sole appellant and the respondent were dismissed while upholding the common order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore that had confirmed the order dated passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.
 
The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the appellant and it had directed the respondent-Hospital to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the appellant as compensation along with 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses. However, the complaint against opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 and 6 namely, the doctors concerned, was dismissed.

The deceased appellant had undergone a major surgery of the left lung and post operation, he had developed hoarseness in his voice. Though an assurance was given by the operating surgeon to the deceased appellant that the hoarseness could be due to the operation that involved complete removal of the tumor along with the lymph nodes around the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve and had given an assurance that the patient could regain his voice within 6 to 8 months with nebulization and voice therapy. The voice of the deceased-appellant was not restored and remained hoarse all through. Subsequently, the appellant took opinions from two other expert doctors in the field.

Both the doctors opined that there was subluxation of the left arytenoid process, which had happened due to wrong intubation during the anaesthesia procedure at the Hospital. On the aspect as to who had performed the intubation during the induction of anaesthesia, it is not in dispute that surgery relating to cancer of the lung is a specialized surgery and needs a specialized anaesthetist. Though the Head of the Department of Anaesthesia was to administer anaesthesia to the deceased-appellant, the same was administered by a doctor who was qualified but was a trainee anaesthetist in Cardiac Anaesthesia Department.
 
The Supreme Court held thus:

On the aspect as to who had performed the intubation during the induction of anaesthesia, it is not in dispute that surgery relating to cancer of the lung is a specialized surgery and needs a specialized anaesthetist. Though the Head of the Department of Anaesthesia was to administer anaesthesia to the deceased-appellant, the same was administered by a doctor who was qualified but was a trainee anaesthetist in Cardiac Anaesthesia Department.

Having regard to the fact that the appellant expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the NCDRC, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter back for reappreciation of the evidence to arrive at a just and fair compensation. Instead, it is deemed appropriate to direct that the compensation awarded by the District Forum be doubled from ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) with simple interest calculated @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is paid, subject to the adjustment of the amounts already released in favour of the deceased - appellant

J. Douglas luiz (since deceased) through legal representatives versus Manipal hospital