INTRODUCTION
Dispute arises between parties when a person’s act causes injury, harm, or loss to another person. As an outcome of this dispute, the injured party called the plaintiff will file a suit before the court against the other party called the defendant for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Most of these disputes are categorised and are kept under one law called the ‘Law of Torts.’ A tort is a civil wrong, in which damages are awarded to the suffering party, and the damages are unliquidated damages which means the amount of damages to be paid will be decided by the court, to the extent the plaintiff has suffered. Similarly, the defendant also gets the defence to protect himself, if the act committed by him was with the duty of care, reasonable control or acted in an inevitable accident moreover the liability of the defendant can be reduced if the plaintiff’s act has also contributed to the dispute or has any pre-existing condition unknown to the defendant. But Sometimes, the defendants are made fully liable for their actions even if the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions make them even worse than they would be. This rule is called as Eggshell Skull rule. Let’s understand this rule more clearly.
Understanding the Egg Shell Skull Rule
This is a legal doctrine that states, the defendant is fully responsible for the harm caused to the plaintiff by their actions. Even if the plaintiff has any pre-existing condition, which would worsen that condition than normal. This rule does not allow the defendant to escape from liability and protects the plaintiff from not being unfairly compensated because of their pre-existing health conditions. Every act of the defendant is taken into consideration and responsible for every further harm caused to the pre-existing condition due to the negligence of the defendant, moreover, compensation is determined not only for harm caused to the pre-existing condition or injury but also for additional injury or harm inflicted. This rule only applies to physical injury caused but not to any emotional, mental or psychological harm caused. This rule is compared with an eggshell and a human head because a human is considered as delicate as an eggshell.[1].
Understanding the Pre-existing condition
A pre-existing condition is where the plaintiff is already suffering from physical injury and the act of the defendant caused much more harm to the injury. It is explained with an example, suppose a person is suffering from a head injury, and the defendant gave a blow on his head, which resulted in bleeding and severe pain to the plaintiff, this caused aggravation of the pre-existing condition that is the head injury, so the defendant is liable for damages. The defendant cannot escape from the compensation stating that the harm caused is just an addition to the pre-existing condition.
Origin of the rule
This rule was first decided in Vosburg v. Putney[2], in this case, the defendant a 12-year-old boy kicked the plaintiff a 14-year-old boy, in the shin. The defendant has no knowledge that the plaintiff has already suffered in that bodily region. The court held that the injury caused serious harm due to the kick, which led to the plaintiff’s leg being lame.
Analysing the applicability of the Eggshell Skull Rule in Medical Negligence cases, from the Decision given by the Supreme Court.
In the case, Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital & Ors [3], the Supreme Court decided the rule’s applicability and validity in the case.
Facts
The claimant was admitted to the respondent’s hospital that is Suket Hospital, in Himachal Pradesh in the year 2005 due to appendicitis, subsequently, that was removed by a Senior Surgeon working in the respondent’s hospital. After the surgery, the claimant suffered from severe pain from the surgical site. Noticing the pain she went to the hospital, and she was admitted to the hospital and was discharged immediately the next day, the doctor stated that no further pain would be suffered by her. But the pains were still left, noticing this she was treated again by a doctor on the reference of the respondent surgeon, but there was no end to her pain. Lastly, she was admitted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Chandigarh, and found that a 2.5 cm needle was, present below the anterior abdominal wall just medial to the previous abdominal scar that is appendicitis for which further surgery had to be performed. The matter was brought before the District Consumer Court Redressal Forum (DCDRF) on the grounds of medical negligence, huge pain suffered, and money spent on the treatment that is 19,80,000/-, the District Forum adjudicated the matter and awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant. Later the respondents preferred an appeal to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (SCDRF) stating that the respondents herein were held liable to compensate the appellant for the physical pain, mental agony, and expenses incurred by her, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, thereby partly allowing the respondent’s appeal. The Revision petition was filed before (NCDRF) which is the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and adjudicated that there was insufficient care provided to the claimant that is post-operation, stating that deficiency of service in not healing the surgical wound because they failed to investigate it. The NCDRF refused the argument that as the claimant had treatment in several hospitals it was difficult to understand who was responsible for the needle in the abdomen. The egg-skull rule was applied to hold an individual liable for all consequences of their act. The compensation awarded by the State Commission was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. This resulted in the reduction of compensation to the patient. The matter was filed before the Supreme Court for the enhancement of the compensation[4].
Decision by the Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court first examined the decision passed by all lower Consumer Forums and examined the validity of the eggshell skull rule applied by the lower consumer forums. The Supreme Court has given a set of conditions where the applicability of the rule is satisfied. They are,
- When the latent condition of the plaintiff has been unearthed,
- When negligence of the wrong-doer re-activates the pre-existing condition
- Wrongdoers action aggravated the pre-existing condition of the plaintiff which hasn’t received any medical attention yet.
- When the wrongdoer’s action accelerates an inevitable disability or loss of life[5].
In the present case, the court examined the facts and stated that neither of the conditions satisfied the application of the eggshell skull rule. Because to apply the rule there should be a pre-existing condition and the actions of the wrongdoer should aggravate the pre-existing condition or worsen the injury or harm. The claimant has undergone treatment for appendicitis but there’s no pre-existing condition discussed. Hence, the Supreme Court stated that there must be a pre-existing condition and since not found, the court had set aside the SCDRF and NCDRF award and upheld the DCDRF award which is rupees 5,00,000 to be paid to the claimants by the respondents.
CONCLUSION
As the rule states the wrongdoer should pay compensation to the plaintiff for all the consequences that occurred due to the negligent act, similarly the validity of the application of the rule should be utmost considered. There should be a nexus between the negligent act and the application of the rule. That is only determined through the pre-existing condition, whether that exists or not. In the above case, there was no nexus though there’s medical negligence and pain suffered by the claimant the court is silent as to how this rule is applicable, and the clear pre-existing condition is not seen. So, the court decided that to apply this rule a pre-existing condition should be satisfied.
Author(s) Name: M.S.V. Syamala Devi (ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad)
[1] Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Eggshell Skull Rule’ (LawBhoomi, 4 June 2024) < Eggshell Skull Rule (lawbhoomi.com)> accessed 6 September 2024
[2] 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. 480 (Wis. 1893)
[3] 2024 INSC 330 (Neutral Citation)
[4] Swasti Chaturvedi, Eggshell Skull Rule’ Can Only Be Applied In Medical Negligence Cases Of Victims Having Pre-Existing Vulnerability Or Medical Condition: SC (Verdictum.in, 24 April 2024) <https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/jyoti-devi-v-suket-hospital-2024-insc-330-medical-negligence-eggshell-skull-rule-1532112?infinitescroll=1> accessed 7 September 2024
[5] Surya Kumar, Legal Clarity on Medical Negligence: Supreme Court’s Ruling on ‘Egg Shell Skull’ Rule (B&B Associates LLP, 25 April 2024) < Legal Clarity on Medical Negligence: ‘Egg Shell Skull’ Rule (bnblegal.com)> accessed 8 September 2024
