Eggshell Skull Principle

Context:

The Supreme Court has rejected the application of the eggshell skull rule and restored compensation of Rs 5 lakhs awarded by the district consumer forum in a medical negligence case.

What is the ‘eggshell skull’ rule?

• It is a common law principle applied in civil litigation.
• Meaning: It is applied when the offender would be liable for all injuries that might be intensified due to the pre existing conditions of the injured person that the offender might be unaware of.  The frailty of the person cannot be used as a defense to escape liability.
  • The rule is applied for claiming an enhanced compensation, for damage that is more than what could have been usually anticipated to be caused by the defendant.
• Origin:  In the case of Vosburg v. Putney (1890), the concept of eggshell skull rule was developed for the first time
• Explained with an example: Imagine a  person with an extremely thin skull, as fragile as an eggshell, even though the person looks completely normal. This person is hit in the head by someone else unaware of the delicate nature of the person’s head. A normal person would have been a little injured , but the person with the eggshell skull dies.
  • As per the eggshell skull rule: The person who hit the eggshell skulled person will be responsible for the extreme consequences the person has suffered and not just the amount of harm a normal person would have suffered. It is often also called the thin skull rule.

The present Case:

• It was a case of medical negligence whereby a 2.5 cm foreign body (needle) was left behind in the patient’s abdomen when she had her appendix removed in a hospital in Himachal Pradesh’s Mandi district in 2005.
• The district consumer forum awarded Rs 5 lakhs to the patient for medical negligence by the hospital. 
• Appeal: The state consumer forum reduced the compensation to Rs 1 lakh on an appeal by the hospital, which was enhanced it to Rs 2 lakh by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while applying the eggshell skull rule.
• The Supreme Court:
• • It restored the district forum’s decision on compensation stating 2 reasons for enhancing the compensation i.e. the patient had suffered pain for more than 5 years and the case took more than a decade to be decided.
  • Rejected the Eggshell Rule: It would not apply in this case because there is no pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition, which got exacerbated by the negligence, because of which the victim may have suffered unusual damage

Additional Reading: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission