The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has enhanced compensation awarded to an acid attack victim from ₹13,19,577 to ₹17,21,865, holding that his permanent disability should have been assessed at 75% instead of 50%. The decision underscores the importance of relying on competent medical evidence while determining compensation for permanent disability, particularly in cases involving severe facial disfigurement and long-term functional consequences.
The matter was decided by a Bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Dr. Sadhna Shanker in Ramanathan M. v. PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Revision Petition No. 897 of 2019.
Acid Attack Resulted in Severe and Permanent Injuries
The complainant, Sri Ramanathan M., was employed as a Pharmacist at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. On May 4, 2007, while visiting his brother, who was undergoing treatment at the hospital, he was allegedly attacked with acid by a staff nurse.
The incident caused grievous burn injuries to his face and other parts of his body. After receiving initial treatment, Ramanathan was shifted to St. John’s Medical College & Hospital, Bengaluru, where he underwent prolonged medical treatment and approximately 12 surgeries.
According to the complainant, the attack caused permanent facial disfigurement, functional impairment and psychological trauma. A disability certificate subsequently issued by St. John’s Medical College & Hospital on September 25, 2009 assessed his permanent disability at 75%.
Compensation Claim and Earlier Orders
Ramanathan approached the consumer forum alleging negligence and deficiency in service and sought compensation of approximately ₹64 lakh. His claim covered medical expenses, disability, loss of future earning capacity, pain and suffering and other consequential damages.
The District Consumer Commission initially awarded ₹1.50 lakh as compensation. The Karnataka State Consumer Commission subsequently enhanced the amount to ₹13,19,577 with interest at 8% per annum.
However, the complainant approached the NCDRC seeking further enhancement. His principal grievance was that the State Commission had assessed his permanent disability at only 50%, despite the medical disability certificate recording it at 75%.
NCDRC Relies on Medical Disability Certificate
The NCDRC examined the compensation calculation adopted by the State Commission and found that the multiplier applied was appropriate in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
However, the Commission found an error in the percentage of permanent disability considered for calculating compensation.
The NCDRC noted that the Disability Certificate issued by St. John’s Medical College & Hospital had specifically certified 75% permanent disability. Therefore, the Commission held that the compensation attributable to permanent disability required reconsideration.
Importantly, the NCDRC did not disturb the other aspects of the State Commission’s assessment. Instead, it confined the interference to the compensation corresponding to the percentage of permanent disability.
Compensation Enhanced to ₹17.21 Lakh
Following its assessment, the NCDRC enhanced the amount awarded towards permanent disability on account of facial disfigurement from ₹8,04,576 to ₹12,06,864.
Consequently, the overall compensation payable to the complainant was increased from:
₹13,19,577 to ₹17,21,865.
The NCDRC accordingly allowed the revision petition and modified the State Commission’s order to the extent of enhancing the total compensation to ₹17,21,865.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Effect of Pending Revision Petition
The NCDRC also clarified an important procedural aspect of the case. PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. had filed a separate Revision Petition, numbered 716 of 2018, against the same order, which was still pending.
Accordingly, the Commission clarified that its present decision would be without prejudice to the rights of PNB MetLife in the pending revision petition. Execution of the compensation order would remain subject to the final outcome of that separate proceeding.
Key Takeaway
The NCDRC’s ruling demonstrates that compensation in consumer disputes involving serious bodily injuries must be determined on the basis of credible medical evidence and the actual extent of permanent disability.
Where a competent medical institution certifies a higher degree of permanent disability, an assessment based on a lower percentage must be adequately justified. In the present case, the difference between 50% and 75% permanent disability substantially affected the compensation payable to the acid attack victim.
The decision therefore reinforces the principle that compensation for permanent disability should reflect the medically established extent of injury and its lasting consequences, particularly where the victim has suffered severe facial disfigurement, multiple surgeries and long-term functional impairment.
Case: Ramanathan M. v. PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Forum: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 897 of 2019
Compensation Enhanced: ₹13,19,577 to ₹17,21,865
Permanent Disability: 75%
Earlier Assessment: 50%
Important Precedent: Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121