Abstract:
A plaintiff is a person who files a legal action or lawsuit against another person or organization, according to the law. In order to make amends for harm or harms they have endured, a plaintiff may ask for damages, payback, or other types of relief.
The mental and emotional pain that a person goes through as a result of an incident or circumstance is referred to as nervous shock, also known as emotional distress or psychological trauma. Nervous shock can result from a number of situations, such as witnessing a traumatic event, becoming the target of a violent crime, or losing a loved one suddenly and unexpectedly.
This initiative discusses Indian law’s approach to psychiatric damages liability as well as the state of compensation awards in common law nations.
The project’s introduction, which covers the definition of a psychiatric injury, damages given in the form of compensation, and some requirements for filing a claim for compensation, is covered in the first section.The project’s second section examines how instances of nervous shock have changed under Indian law.
The idea of determining the complainant and defendant, which was stimulated by one piece of case law, is then explained. After this idea is explained, the Indian approach to nervous shock cases and its iconic examples are discussed.
The final significant section discusses how common law nations give compensation for harm brought on by psychiatric illness.
Introduction:
There is a lengthy history of recognition for the law pertaining to nervous shock. Since it was first established in the case of, the issue of recovery for nervous shock (or psychiatric injury) negligently caused by another has baffled numerous courts in numerous common law countries around the world.
The case of Byrne v. Southern and Western Railway Co. The job of establishing liability in the case of nervous shock, where the victim claims is based on psychiatric damage, is the most challenging and contentious in all of tort law. where the harm is the outcome of another person’s suffering as a result of the tortfeasor’s negligence.
Definition of plaintiffs default:
It is also referred to as “nervous shock,” and it refers to a situation in which a claimant asks for money even when there is no obvious bodily harm.
According to medical circumstances, circulatory failure is defined as a rapid drop in blood pressure accompanied by pallor, sweating, a rapid but weak pulse, and occasionally collapse.
A group of defenses, or “excuses,” known as general defences can be used to avoid tort responsibility. But in order to avoid responsibility, the plaintiff files a lawsuit against the defendant for a specific tort, and if all the necessary elements of that tort were present, the defendant would be held accountable for the same.
According to the legal principle ex turpi causa, a plaintiff cannot be awarded penalties if he personally committed the wrongdoing.
However, if a defendant argues that the plaintiff is the wrongdoer and not entitled to damages, the judge may not absolve him of responsibility.
If a defendant argues that the claimant is the one who committed the wrong and is not entitled to penalties, the court will not absolve him of responsibility under this heading, but it does not mean that the defendant will not be held accountable.
The plaintiff in the case of Bird v. Holbrook[18] was entitled to compensation for losses he incurred as a result of spring-guns he had secretly placed in his yard.
Major factors that contribute to this condition’s occurrence include illness, stress, and injury. Shock lowers blood pressure below what is required to hydrate bodily tissues, particularly the brain. The reason will determine the appropriate course of treatment.
In order to be eligible for reimbursement under the category of psychiatric damages, two requirements must be met.
These two conditions are:
- According to Lord Bridge, in order to be eligible for compensation under this law, it must be proven that the person in question is not only grieving but also has a diagnosable positive mental illness, such as morbid depression, hysterical personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, pathological stress disorder, or chronic fatigue syndrome. There must also be a medical witness or expert who can attest to the facts listed above. The simple occurrence of anxiety, an emotional outburst, etc. will not be compensated.
- The law committee believed that the reasonable foreseeability test should be used to examine psychiatric damages in addition to the simple foreseeability test. It was first applied in the Delieu v. White & Sons case.(1)
In this case, the defendants’ servant negligently drove a horse-driven van so as to direct it into the public house while the plaintiff, the pregnant wife of A.R. Delieu was seated behind the bar of her husband’s public house. As a result, plaintiff suffered a nervous shock that caused her illness and ultimately resulted in the premature birth of an idiot baby. Plaintiff seeks compensation, and the court decided that plaintiff should only be permitted to recover when danger is present.
Two major points of the above case:
First, the defendant must assume that the plaintiff is a prudent lady with a normal standard of foreseeability when performing the reasonable foreseeability test. When the plaintiff has proven her sense of caution and that it is reasonable for a reasonable woman to experience the nervous shock that the plaintiff did in this particular instance, she is then entitled to full compensation.
Second, ex post facto analysis is done to determine whether the psychiatric disease could have been predicted after the fact. Unless one uses hindsight:
The question is no longer whether it was predictable that a person of average strength would experience a mental illness as a result of what actually occurred, but rather whether it was predictable that such a person would experience a mental illness as a result of what might have occurred but did not.
Thus, it is clear that when deciding on claims for psychiatric damages, the judge must consider herself to be a sensible, reasonable lady. According to Lord Bridge, the judge should make a decision based on her judgment as a lady of reasonable education.
History of nervous shock:
Origin of Psychiatric Damages: As evidenced by the case of Victorian Railways Commissioner v. Coultas, judges initially did not award damages in psychiatric damage cases.(2). When the train was about to cross the intersection, the defendants in this case carelessly drove the carriage onto the tracks. As a result, a pregnant woman suffered a nervous shock that resulted in a miscarriage. When the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for compensation, the court ruled that he was not entitled to receive money because he had not suffered any physical harm.
This case was decided at a time when people did not have a lot of knowledge about how people’s minds functioned, but later on after some time another case came into the front of court called Deliue v. White(3). In this case, a carriage was driven into the pub where one lady was working who was pregnant. She got terrified by such an event and had suffered nervous shock. She claimed compensation for it. In this situation, the court granted the lady’s request for compensation, opening up other possibilities.
The concept of nervous shock has now developed in India’s legal system through a number of cases in a manner identical to how it did in common law nations.
Cases under Indian jurisprudence:
As opposed to today, when the Madras High Court ruled in the case of Halligua v. Mohansundarum(4) that the nervous system controlled the body and that even if there was no physical harm done to the party, the party’s nervous system could still be affected and receive compensation. Previously, Indian courts were very lenient when it came to cases involving psychiatric damages.
In a different case named Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, the nature of courts was expanded somewhat. (5). In this instance, the complainant was awarded damages because she experienced a nervous shock after being harassed by government officials. Numerous other cases, such as Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh(6), also adopted this ruling.
Determining plaintiff and defendant:
In many cases, it can be confusing to distinguish between those who are entitled to compensation and those who are not, so in the case of Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the court went one step further and divided victims into two categories: primary victims and secondary victims. (7).
A primary victim is a plaintiff who was hurt while mediating a dispute or participating right away. A later case, Page v. Smith (8), narrowed the scope of this category plaintiff description, defining primary victims as those who were immediately engaged in the accident and suffered injuries that were well within the range of what was reasonably foreseeable.
According to the ruling in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, a person who experiences psychiatric harm even though it is not immediately related to the accident is considered a secondary victim. Even then, if the secondary victims come under the Control Mechanism, they may still file a claim for compensation.
Control mechanism:
In the case Mcloughlin v. O’ Brian(9), the term “control mechanism” was defined, and it was decided that in order to narrow the scope, a secondary victim must also meet the following three additional control mechanisms:
proximity of relationship with immediate victim, i.e. secondary victim was in intimate love and affectionate relationship with the immediate victim; examples of the relationships mentioned above include spouses, parents, children, and fiancé, grandparents, etc.
Closeness in time and place to the incidents that led to the mental illness:
The plaintiff in this instance must have seen the actual accident or its aftermath within a short period of time, depending on the circumstances (some freedom is allowed under this requirement depending on the circumstances).
India’s stance on nervous shock:
In India, tort law jurisdiction and responsibility are still developing, but there are many instances where the plaintiff receives compensation, and it is only from these cases that liability for psychiatric damages has emerged. Despite the fact that India has no laws governing nervous shock, courts still decide cases based on the reasonableness of a prudent individual.
In a case known as Jose Philip Mamphilli v. Premier Automobile Limited(10), the plaintiff in India received the maximum amount of compensation for emotional anguish. When the plaintiff (Mr. Jose) complained about the defect in the brand-new vehicle, the manufacturer denied his liability, citing the fact that it was not his fault because it was a very minor issue. Mr. Jose suffered from a nervous shock as a result.
The court decided that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation because there is no question that after spending so much money on a vehicle and receiving a defective one, he will experience mental anguish. It was difficult to determine how much compensation should be given to the plaintiff after the court approved 40,000 cases in this case.
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank(11), a recent judgement of nervous shock, clearly states that the amount of compensation awarded will depend on the specifics of each case, the type of harassment experienced, the length of the harassment, and the type of arbitrary, capricious, or negligent action taken by the authority that resulted in the harassment.
The Mental Health Act of 1987 is the only piece of law in India that regulates mental illness and the authority responsible for caring for her; all other issues are handled in accordance with reason and as previously mentioned.
The case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta(12) is a well-known example in this respect. In this case, the Lucknow Authority failed to provide a flat to the plaintiff M. K. Gupta in the timeframe it had promised when it was paid for it. In this case, the plaintiff submitted a claim for damages for harassment and mental anguish.
The same line of reasoning was followed in numerous instances involving psychiatric damages, such as Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh(13) and Haryana Development Authority v. Vijay Aggarwal(14). But in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. UOI (15), where there was a contract for a plot that was delayed in being delivered past the date stated in the contract, this was once more set apart.
Without taking into consideration any tort-related factors, the court in this case only considered the case from the perspective of the contract and applied The Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this case, the Supreme Court also ruled that paying the plaintiff for emotional anguish was improper.
Laws related to nervous shock in uk:
In common law nations, liabilities are distinct from those in India because liability for psychiatric damages varies according to location.
USA: Case law is used to determine obligations in the USA.
Protection of Harassments Act of 1997 in the UK.
In England, the Protection of Harassments Act, 1997, deals with instances of nervous shock. According to Section 1(2) of this Act, if a reasonable person with the same information would believe that the conduct in question amounted to harassment of the other, then the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it does so for purposes of this Section.
In the case of Wainright v. Home Office(16), the plaintiff and his mother visited the prison to see his step brother who had been jailed for dealing drugs, and because they had no idea what to expect, they decided to strip-search everyone who would visit the prison. As a result, during the search, the police officer accidentally touched the son’s penis, and a psychiatrist determined that both the son and mother had experienced severe nervous shock. According to the court’s ruling on the Wainright compensation claims, the claim cannot be upheld if “a merely negligent act contrary to general principles, gives rise to claim for damages for distress because it affects privacy rather than some other interest, like bodily safety.”
Conclusion:
The above project discusses Indian law, which demonstrates that judges are lenient when awarding compensation to victims. This is because cases involving psychiatric damages in India were brought before courts much later than they are in other countries. As a result, the Mental Health Act, 1987, which addressed cases involving harassment and mental agony, was later passed.
But in the UK, this was not the situation because judges did not traditionally award compensation. Although initially only those victims who were directly related to the accident were considered for compensation under the legislation, secondary victims are now also taken into account. Later, the British Parliament passed the Protection of Harassment Act, 1997, to guarantee that such victims received just compensation. In the USA, compensation has only been granted to those who enter a danger zone, and law is still based on case-law.
Websites
- http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1721-nervous-shock-and-liability-of-psychiatric-damages-in-india-and-in-common-law-countries.html
- www.wikipedia.org
- Books
1. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 17th edition, 2003.
This article is written by Ananya Banerjee
