News Excerpt: 

The Supreme Court restored the compensation of Rs 5 lakhs awarded by the district consumer forum in a medical negligence case by underlining that the state and central consumer courts incorrectly applied the ‘eggshell skull’ legal principle.

What is the ‘eggshell skull’ rule?

• The eggshell skull rule is a common law principle applied in civil litigation. 
• Essentially, when the offender would be liable for all injuries that might be intensified due to the peculiar conditions of the injured person that the offender might not have known.
• Simply put, the defendant would be held responsible for injuries caused to a person when he hit him on the head, even if the victim had a particularly delicate skull or an ‘eggshell’ for a skull.
• The origins of the eggshell skull rule are most often traced back to an 1891 Vosburg v. Putney case in Wisconsin, US.

More about supreme court stand on ‘eggshell skull’ rule:

• In its ruling on the case, the Supreme Court said that “A person who has an eggshell skull would be more severely impacted by an act, which an otherwise “normal person” would be able to withstand,”
• The rule is applied for claiming an enhanced compensation for damage that is more than what could have been ordinarily anticipated to be caused by the defendant.

What did the SC rule related to Jyoti’s case?

• The SC held that the eggshell skull rule would not apply in Jyoti’s case since the facts of the case do not indicate that she had a “pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition, because of which the victim may have suffered ‘unusual damage’.” 
• The court noted that the NCDRC had simply mentioned the rule but was “silent as to how this rule applies to the present case.”
• The ruling stated the two factors necessitated enhancing the compensation: Jyoti had suffered pain for more than 5 years and the case took more than a decade to be decided.