SC: Money can't measure housewives' work

Verdict in medical negligence case cites invaluable services by housewives

A wife or mother does not work by the clock. The gratuitous services rendered by her with true love and affection to her children and husband while managing household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others

Holding that the contribution made by a wife or mother to her family is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money, the Supreme Court has said that a family deserves adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the woman.

The court’s observation came while awarding a compensation of over Rs 6 crores to NRI Kunal Saha, whose wife Anuradha died of medical negligence in 1998.

“A wife or mother does not work by the clock. The gratuitous services rendered by her with true love and affection to her children and husband while managing household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others,” the court observed while calculating the compensation. “She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance for their future. A housekeeper can do the household work but she can never be a substitute for a wife or mother.”

The court also noted how Anuradha suffered immense pain, suffering and mental agony during the 18-day long ordeal because of doctors’ and Kolkata-based AMRI Hospital’s negligence, which has been proved by the claimant.

Setting a precedent for all future medical negligence cases, the court used an approach based on a study by US-based economist Prof John F Burke to calculate the compensation and categorically stated that Anuradha’s premature death will amount to a loss of income of “5 million and 125 thousand dollars”.

The amount was calculated after deducting one-third of the amount for her personal expenses. “As per the evidence on record, the deceased (Anuradha) was earning $30,000 per annum at the time of her death. According to Burke, the deceased could have earned much more in future given her present prospect,” the court observed. “It would be just and proper for us to take her earning at $40,000 per annum on a regular job. Therefore, estimating the life expectancy of a healthy person in the present age as 70 years, we are inclined to award compensation accordingly by multiplying the total loss of income by 30.”

Good relief, My Lord!

Can a woman’s contribution to her family as a mother, wife, sister, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, granny, nanny and domestic help be computed in terms of money on hourly or weekly basis, as is done in the case of workers belonging to different professions? Generally, it is not done in this country and in many other traditional societies where women are bound more by societal norms and familial ties than the clamour of equal rights with men feminists propound. There are any number of studies and calculations made on a woman’s average contribution to own family in terms of work and how much it would have cost the head of the family, read father/husband, if outsiders were hired for jobs normally done by a female member. We all know, even without looking at the statistical data, she does enormous work, selflessly, for family’s sake. Rarely Indian women think what they do for home and family in terms of money; simply put, it’s not contribution but sacrifice. So when the Supreme Court awarded a record Rs 5.96-crore compensation to Dr Kunal Saha, an NRI, whose wife died in 1998 in India due to a rare and deadly skin disease, on the grounds of medical negligence by doctors in Kolkata and Mumbai, the verdict last Thursday raised many eyebrows. The amount the apex court had announced was unprecedented in the annals of Indian medical compensation claims. Secondly, it’s matter of curiosity for the general public on what basis nearly Rs 6 crores were awarded to the NRI doctor for the loss of his spouse who was a child psychologist in the US.

By setting a precedent in raising the bar on medical negligence claims, and settling the issue of what women’s work is worth at home or the contribution made by a wife or mother to her family, the apex court observed, “it is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money; a family deserves adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the woman. A wife or mother does not work by the clock. The gratuitous services rendered by her with true love and affection to her children and husband while managing household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance for their future. A housekeeper can do the household work but she can never be a substitute for a wife or mother.”

Apparently, the apex court had arrived at that figure based on work done by US-based economist Prof John F Burke. Accordingly, the Supreme Court had determined that “Anuradha’s premature death will amount to a loss of income of 5 million and 125 thousand dollars. As per the evidence on record, the deceased (Anuradha) was earning $30,000 per annum at the time of her death. According to Burke, the deceased could have earned much more in future given her present prospect. It would be just and proper for us to take her earning at $40,000 per annum on a regular job. Therefore, estimating the life expectancy of a healthy person in the present age as 70 years, we are inclined to award compensation accordingly by multiplying the total loss of income by 30.” It was calculated after deducting 1/3rd of the amount for her personal expenses. Well, that could be the basis for computing the compensation to be given to victims of medical negligence in future.