Supreme Court: Tribunal Cannot Disregard Medical Board’s 100% Disability Assessment; Enhances Compensation to ₹48.7 Lakh for Comatose Accident Victim

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India set aside the findings of the High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) regarding the degree of disability of the claimant, who was in a comatose state following a road accident. The Court held that the Tribunal had wrongly disregarded the Medical Board’s assessment, which had certified the claimant as 100% disabled.

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court:

1. The Tribunal had no authority to substitute its own assessment of disability for that of a duly constituted Medical Board.
2. Total loss of earning capacity must be recognized for claimants suffering from 100% permanent disability.
3. The High Court’s partial enhancement of compensation was still inadequate, as it failed to recognize the full impact of the claimant’s condition.
4. Attendant charges must be awarded for a person in a vegetative state.
5. Compensation for pain and suffering must be substantial, given the claimant’s permanent state of incapacitation.

The Supreme Court, therefore, enhanced the compensation to ₹48,70,000/-, including higher amounts for loss of income, future prospects, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and attendant charges.

Facts

1. The Accident:
   • The accident occurred on March 23, 2014, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle.
   • A Maruti Omni, driving on the wrong side, collided with his motorcycle.
   • The accident resulted in severe head trauma, leading to a comatose state.
2. Medical Treatment:
   • The claimant was initially treated at Katta Hospital, Bandikui, and later transferred to Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur.
   • The injuries left him completely incapacitated, unable to speak, move, or perform daily activities.
3. Legal Proceedings:
   • The claimant filed a petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
   • The Tribunal granted ₹16,29,465/-, but only considered 50% disability, ignoring the Medical Board’s 100% disability certificate.
   • The High Court increased the compensation to ₹19,39,418/-, but still refused to accept full disability.
   • The claimant appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking compensation for full disability, attendant charges, and adequate pain and suffering damages.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in disregarding the Medical Board’s assessment of 100% disability?
2. What should be the correct compensation payable to the claimant, considering his permanent disability, future expenses, and attendant charges?
3. Should additional compensation be awarded for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Medical Board’s 100% Disability Assessment Is Final:
   • The claimant argued that the Tribunal wrongly substituted its own assessment by reducing the disability percentage to 50%.
   • The Medical Board’s report clearly stated that he:
     • Had no speech or intellectual functions.
     • Could not stand or walk.
     • Was completely dependent on others for daily activities.
   • The Tribunal had no basis to reject this assessment.
2. Loss of Full Earning Capacity Must Be Recognized:
   • Since the claimant was entirely incapacitated, he had lost his entire earning capacity.
   • Courts cannot arbitrarily reduce the percentage of disability without medical evidence.
3. Attendant Charges Must Be Awarded:
   • Given that the claimant was in a vegetative state, he needed a full-time caregiver.
   • A monthly amount of ₹6,000 for an attendant was reasonable, but the Tribunal and High Court failed to consider this.
4. Inadequate Compensation for Pain and Suffering:
   • The High Court awarded only ₹2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, which was grossly inadequate.
   • The claimant’s permanent, irreversible disability warranted higher compensation.
5. Legal Precedents Supporting Full Disability Claims:
   • The claimant relied on:
     • Union of India v. Talwinder Singh [(2012) 5 SCC 480]: Medical Board’s opinion is conclusive unless contradicted by another expert opinion.
     • Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343]: Loss of earning capacity must be linked to the percentage of disability.
     • Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [(2020) 4 SCC 413]: 100% disabled individuals must receive full compensation for future care.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. No Proof of 100% Disability:
   • The insurance company argued that no neurosurgeon or treating doctor testified to prove 100% disability.
   • The Tribunal was justified in reducing the disability assessment.
2. Disability Certificate Not Completely Reliable:
   • The insurance company contended that the Medical Board’s assessment was subjective.
   • Courts were not bound to accept it blindly.
3. No Documentary Evidence for Attendant Charges:
   • The insurance company claimed that there was no proof that an attendant was hired.
   • No salary slips, receipts, or contracts were submitted.

Analysis of the Law

1. Medical Board’s Report Must Be Given Due Weight:
   • The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had no authority to reject the expert opinion without substantial evidence.
   • If the Tribunal had doubts, it should have sought another medical evaluation, rather than disregarding the Medical Board’s report.
2. Full Compensation for 100% Disability:
   • The Supreme Court applied the principle laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, which states that:
     • If disability is 100%, the loss of earning capacity must also be considered 100%.
     • The High Court’s assumption of 50% disability was legally flawed.
3. Attendant Charges Must Be Awarded:
   • The Supreme Court, following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, held that permanently disabled individuals need a full-time attendant.
   • The Court awarded ₹7,80,000/- towards attendant charges.
4. Pain and Suffering Compensation Must Be Just and Fair:
   • The Supreme Court increased compensation for pain and suffering from ₹2,00,000/- to ₹8,00,000/-, recognizing:
     • The claimant’s permanent vegetative state.
     • The significant emotional and physical toll on him and his family.

Conclusion

1. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and enhanced compensation as follows:HeadTribunal AwardHigh Court AwardSupreme Court AwardLoss of Future Income₹12,39,810/-₹12,39,810/-₹24,79,620/-Future ProspectsNot Awarded₹3,09,953/-₹6,19,905/-Attendant ChargesNot AwardedNot Awarded₹7,80,000/-Medical Reimbursement₹1,71,155/-₹1,71,155/-₹1,71,155/-Hospitalization Expenses₹18,500/-₹18,500/-₹18,500/-Pain & Suffering₹2,00,000/-₹2,00,000/-₹8,00,000/-Total Compensation₹16,29,465/-₹19,39,418/-₹48,70,000/-
2. The insurance company was directed to pay ₹48,70,000/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Implications

• Strengthens the authority of Medical Boards in accident claims.
• Ensures full compensation for victims with 100% disability.
• Recognizes attendant charges as an essential expense.
• Sets a precedent for substantial pain and suffering awards in catastrophic injury cases.

This ruling ensures accident victims receive just compensation and reinforces the principle that expert medical opinions cannot be ignored without valid grounds.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c): Transfer of Revalued Stock-in-Trade to Partnership Firm, Followed by Immediate Withdrawals, Held as a Tax Evasion Device—”A Mere Disclosure in Books Does Not Amount to Full and True Disclosure”