Medical negligence case: SC awards Rs 1 crore as compensation

The Supreme Court on Thursday awarded a massive compensation of Rs one crore to a software engineer who suffered permanent disability due to medical negligence at a government-owned hospital in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices B N Agrawal, G S Singhwi and H S Bedi enhanced the compensation to Rs one crore from Rs 15 lakh which was awarded by the Andhra Pradesh High Court to Prashant S Dhanaka, the software engineer.

The victim suffered permanent disability in the form of paralysis and other complications, rendering him incapable of all normal chores after undergoing a surgery in Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences.

The Head Notes of the case are mentioned below:-

Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Appellant versus Prasanth S. Dhananka and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/14/2009.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.

Subject Index: A)

Medical negligence — the complete investigations prior to the actual operation had not been carried out — whether the required consent for the excision of the tumour had been taken from the complainant or his parents. The Commission has noted that some discussion between the complainant, his parents and Dr. Satyanarayana had taken place in the OPD and the possibility of deferring the operation had been mooted but notwithstanding this discussion, the complainant had been admitted to hospital on the 19th October, 1990 and operated upon on 23rd October 1990. The Commission has observed that as blood had been donated by the relatives of the complainant, it was likely that they had the information that a surgery was planned, as they were educated and enlightened persons. The Commission has, accordingly, held on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Satyanarayana "that once the consent for excision biopsy through thoractomy was given, the consent for a moment (sic) (removal?) of the mass was implied" — in a case involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts on to the hospital or to the attending doctors and it is for the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care or diligence — the attending doctors were seriously remiss in the conduct of the operation and it was on account of this negligence that the Paraplegia had set in — the complainant had to undergo great agony and inconvenience for lack of proper post operative medical care. B) Quantum of compensation — keeping in view the need for continuous medical aid which would involve expensive medicines and other material, and the loss towards future earnings etc., this Court directs a lump sum payment of Rs.25/-lakhs under each of these two heads making a total of Rs.50 lakhs — a payment of Rs.10 lakh towards the pain and suffering that the appellant has undergone. The total amount thus computed would work out to Rs.1,00,05,000 (Rs.1 crore 5 thousand) which is rounded off to Rs. One Crore plus interest at 6% from Ist March, 1999 to the date of payment, giving due credit for any compensation which might have already been paid.

The Brief of the case are:-

Prasant S. Dhananka ( hereinafter called the "complainant"), then 20 years of age and a student of Engineering, complaining of recurring fever was examined in the hospital run by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited as his father was employed with that Organisation. As the cause of the fever could not be identified, he visited the appellant -Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) on 9th September, 1990 in the evening OPD. He was examined by one Dr. Ashish Boghani, a Chest and Tuberculosis Specialist and was advised to undergo on ultrasound guided biopsy for Neurofibroma, an innocent tumour, after an X-ray revealed a mass in the left hemithorax with posterior mediastinal erosion of the left 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs. As several attempts at Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) under ultra sound guidance did not give any conclusive evidence as to the nature of the mass detected in the X-ray examination, the complainant was

referred (on 5th October, 1990) for further examination to Dr.U.N. Das, who suggested another attempt at the same procedure but under C.T. guidance. This test too did not show any lesion on which Dr. U.N. Das suggested that he undergo an excision biopsy and referred him to Dr. P.V. Satyanarayana, a Cardio Thoracic Surgeon, who further advised him to report at the hospital on 16th October, 1990 for allotment of a room. The complainant was admitted to the hospital on 19th October, 1990 and the operation wasperformed on 23rd October, 1990 and the tumour was excised. It appears that immediately after the surgery, the complainant developed acute paraplegia with a complete loss of control over the lower limbs, and some other related complications, which led to prolonged hospitalization and he was ultimately discharged from the hospital on 19th May, 1991 completely paralyzed with no change in his sensory deficit. The discharge record also shows that the patient required continuous

physiotherapy and nursing care on account of infection of the urinary tract and the development of bed-sores etc. It is the case of the complainant that after his discharge from NIMS, he visited several other hospitals seeking relief, but to no avail. On 11th May, 1991 the complainant's father requested NIMS for a detailed report so that his son's case could be discussed with experts from other developed countries` so as to improve his quality of life. No reply was, however, forthcoming despite a reminder. Another letter dated 12th November 1991 also drew no response. Completely frustrated, the complainant filed a complaint before the National Consumer Redressal

Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") on 5th April, 1993 alleging utter and complete negligence on the part of Dr. P.V. Satyanarayana and the other attending doctors and also making NIMS vicariously liable and the State of Andhra Pradesh statutorily liable for the negligence of the doctors concerned. Allegations was primarily levelled against Dr. P.V. Satyanarayana for negligence before, during and after the operation. It was alleged that the medical record did not

indicate any immediate danger to the complainant's life and health and that his father had pleaded with the doctors that the operation be postponed till such time he could complete his engineering degree course. It was further alleged that the doctors had not carried out the required pre-operative tests which were available in NIMS itself and that the complications which could possibly flow as the result of an excision biopsy had not been spelt out to the complainant prior to the procedure. It was also submitted that operating on a neurofibroma or a schwannoma which had neurological implications as well, warranted the involvement of a Neuro surgeon but no such opinion was sought before the surgery. It was also pleaded that the consent that had been taken was

only for the purpose of an excision biopsy which was an exploratory procedure, but Dr.Satyanarayana had carried out a complete excision removing the tumour mass and the fourth

rib thereby destroying the inter-costal blood vessels leading to paraplegia and had a Neuro-surgeon been associated with the operation, this problem could well have been avoided. The complainant also alleged that negligence in post-operative treatment and care had led to bedsores, severe pain, and high temperature and frequent and unnecessary exposure to X-rays which could be a potential hazard later in life. He accordingly claimed compensation as follows:

A) SPECIAL DAMAGES (PECUNIARY)

1. Loss of future earnings Rs.89,17,200
(Annexure XI)

2. Present burden of expenses Rs. 3,38,604**
[Annexures IV(a) to(d) ]


3. Damages on account of the Rs. 30,34,930
complainant by father, mother,
younger brother & maternal Uncle
[Annexures VII, VIII, IX & X]

4. Prospective burden of expenses Rs. 3,00,00,000
(Annexure-XII)


B) GENERAL DAMAGES (NON PECUNIARY)

Pain and suffering, loss of amenities & Rs.38,30,000 Enjoyment of life & shortening of life
Expectancy. (Annexures XIII, XIV, XV) - Rs.4,61,20,734

** (Later in his affidavit dated 5.2.94, this has
been shown as Rs.3,49,022 and the total claim
as 4,61,31,152: the present burden of
expenses includes an amount of Rs.1,27,644/-
paid to OPI and Rs.91,002/- to other
hospitals).


Opinion:-

The complainant, who has argued his own case, has submitted written submissions now claiming about 7.50 Crores as compensation under various heads. He has, in addition sought a direction that a further sum of Rs. 2 crores be set aside to be used by him should some developments beneficial to

him in the medical field take place. Some of the claims are untenable and we have no hesitation in rejecting them. We, however, find that the claim with respect to some of the other items need to be allowed or enhanced in view of the peculiar facts of the case. Concededly, the complainant is a highly qualified individual and is gainfully employed as an IT Engineer and as per his statement earning a sum of Rs.28 Lakh per annum though he is, as of today, about 40 years of age. The

very nature of his work requires him to travel to different locations but as he is confined to a wheel chair he is unable to do so on his own. His need for a driver cum attendant is, therefore, made out. The complainant has worked out the compensation under this head presuming his working life to be upto the age of 65 years. We feel that a period of 30 years from the date of the Award of the Commission i.e. 16 th February, 1999, rounded off to Ist March, 1999, would be a reasonable

length of time. A sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of 30 years (rounded off from 1st of March 1999) needs to be capitalized. We, accordingly, award a sum of Rs.7.2 Lakh under this head. The complainant has also sought a sum of Rs.49,05,800/- towards nursing care etc. as he is unable to perform even his daily ablutions without assistance. He has computed this figure on the basis of the salary of a Nurse at Rs. 4375/-per month for 600 months. We are of the opinion that the amount as claimed is excessive. We, thus grant Rs.4,000/- per month to the appellant for a period of 30 years making a total sum of Rs.14,40,000/-. The complainant has further sought a sum of Rs.46 Lakhs towards physiotherapy etc. at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. We reduce the claim from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and award this amount for a period of 30 years making a total sum of Rs.10,80,000/- At this stage, it may be pointed out that some of the medical expenses that had been incurred by the complainant have already been defrayed by the employer of the complainant's father and we are, therefore, disinclined to grant any compensation for the medical expenses already incurred. However, keeping in view the need for continuous medical aid which would involve expensive medicines and other material, and the loss towards future earnings etc., we direct a lump sum payment of Rs.25/-lakhs under each of these two heads making a total of Rs.50 lakhs. In addition, we direct a payment of Rs.10 lakh towards the pain and suffering that the appellant has undergone. The total amount thus computed would work out to Rs.1,00,05,000 (Rs.1 crore 5 thousand) which is rounded off to Rs. One Crore plus interest at 6% from Ist March, 1999 to the date of payment, giving due credit for any compensation which might have already been paid.

The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.2 crore to be put in deposit to be utilized by him in case some developments in the medical field make it possible for him to undergo further treatment so as to improve his quality of life.This claim is unjustified and hypothetical and is declined.

We must emphasize that the Court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of the thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualized.

Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress, vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped
person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. We can also visualize the anxiety of the complainant and his parents for the future after the latter, as must all of us, inevitably fade away. We, have, therefore computed the compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant career has been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility of improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when he is unable to earn for himself.

Mr. Tandale, the learned counsel for the respondent has, further, submitted that the proper method for determining compensation would be the multiplier method. We find absolutely no merit in this plea. The kind of damage that the complainant has suffered, the expenditure that he has incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility that his rise in his chosen field would now be restricted, are matters which cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method.

Civil appeal No.3126 of 2000 is allowed in the above term with costs of Rs.50,000/-. It is also clarified that the complainant parents would be entitled to the sum awarded to them by the Commission. CA No.4119 of 1999 is dismissed.

Before we end, a word of appreciation for the complainant who, assisted by his father, had argued his matter. We must record that though a sense of deep injury was discernible throughout his protracted submissions made while confined to a wheel-chair, he remained unruffled and with behaved quiet dignity, pleaded his case bereft of any rancour or invective for those who, in his perception, had harmed him.

As the complainant is severely handicapped and has appeared in person, we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to his address, free of cost, under registered cover.

Whether summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet can be allowed

The Hon'ble Supreme held that the material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected only because it has been filed at the stage of trial. The bench comprising Justice S.B.Sinha and Justice P. Sathsivam held in Rama Chaudhary vs State of Bihar on 02,Apr 2009.

The Head Notes are:-

Criminal - IPC, 1860, ss. 364, 34 - Cr.P.C, 1973, ss. 173(2), 173(8) - Whether summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet can be allowed? - Held, even after submission of police report under 173(2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to further investigation under s. 173(8) but not 'fresh investigation' or 'reinvestigation' - Carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the Police - Trial Court is fully justified to summon witnesses examined in the course of further investigation - Appeal dismissed.

The section (1) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Sub-section (2) mandates that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government mentioning the name of the parties, nature of information, name of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances
of the case and further particulars such as the name of the offences that have been committed, arrest of the accused and details about his release with or without sureties. Among other sub-sections, we are very much concerned about sub-section (8) which reads as under:-
"(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the
officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of
sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in
relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."

A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear that irrespective of report under sub-section (2) forwarded to the Magistrate, if the officer in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on his part to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed.

The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation.

Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further investigation is permissible.

"Further" investigation,therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.

Further held in the present case that if we consider the above legal principles, the order dated 19.02.2008 of the trial Court summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet cannot be faulted with.The law does not mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. It is settled law that carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the Police.

The material collected in further investigationcannot be rejected only because it has been filed at the stage of trial. The facts and circumstances show that the trial Court is fully justified to summon witnesses examined in the course of further investigation. It is also clear from Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. that the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as witness even though such person is not named in the earlier charge-sheet.

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS( BIS)

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), the National Standards Body of India, is a statutory body set up under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. The Bureau is a body corporate and responsible for formulating National Standards. It comprises of members representing the Industry, Consumer Organizations, Scientific & Research Institutes and Professional Bodies, Technical Institutions, Central ministries, State Governments and Members of Parliament.

Indian Standards are formulated keeping in view national priorities, programmes for industrial development, technological needs, export promotion, consumer welfare, health, safety, etc. So far over 17000 standards have been formulated in different technology areas.

Product Certification - The product certification scheme is basically voluntary in nature and aims at providing quality, safety and dependability to the ultimate customer. Conformity is ensured by regular surveillance visits of the units Performance of licensee is monitored by surprise inspections and testing of samples, drawn both from the factory and the market.

Eco Mark - The Government of India had instituted a scheme in February 1991 known as ECO mark Scheme for labeling environment friendly products. This scheme is administered by the Bureau of Indian Standards.

BIS is a national agency authorized to operate Quality Systems Certification in India. It has adopted ISO 9000 series of standards as IS 9000 series Indian Standards, and aligned the procedure for operation of Quality Systems Certification, based on international criteria and is comparable to any other such systems being operated.

Now the Question before us is "What is ISO?"

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies, at present comprising 140 members, one in each country. The object of ISO is to promote the development of standardization and related activities in the world with a view to facilitating international exchange of goods and services, and to developing cooperation in the spheres of intellectual, scientific, technological and economic activity. The results of ISO technical work are published as International Standards.

What is ISO 9000?

The ISO 9000 family of standards represents an international consensus on good management practices with the aim of ensuring that the organization can time and time again deliver the product or services that meet the client’s quality requirements. These good practices have been distilled into a set of standardized requirements for a quality management system, regardless of what your organization does, its size, or whether it is in the private, or public sector. The family of ISO 9000 standards have been developed by ISO and it is made up of four core standards:

a) ISO 9000:2000 – Fundamentals and Vocabulary

b) ISO 9001:2000 – Quality Management Systems – Requirements

c) ISO 9004:2000 – Quality Management Systems – Guidelines for performance improvements

d) ISO 19011: 2002 – Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems auditing

What is the role of BIS in ISO 9000?

BIS is the National Standards Body of India and is a founder member of ISO. BIS represents India, in ISO. The Technical Committee (TC) number 176 (ISO/TC 176), and its Sub-committees of ISO are responsible for the development of ISO 9000 standards. Quality and industry experts from India including BIS officers nominated by BIS participate in the meetings of the Technical Committee ISO/TC 176 and its Sub-committees.

EMS Certification- With the growing concern for environment friendly industrial activity, ISO 14000 series of standards have been developed. BIS, after adoption of these standards as national standards, has launched Environment Management System (EMS) Certification (IS / ISO :

HACCP Certification:-BIS launched HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) based Quality System Certification Scheme as per the requirements of IS 15000 : 1998 standard (equivalent to Codex ALINORM 97 / 13A).

Hall Marking of Gold Jewellary:- In order to protect consumers against victimization of irregular gold quality.Hallmarking of gold jewellery was launched under BIS Act, 1986. This scheme is voluntary in nature.

With its headquarters at Delhi, BIS have five regional offices at Kolkata, Chandigarh, Mumbai, Delhi, and Chennai. It has 33 branch offices in the country. The BIS is developing need-based standards in accordance with national priorities with the help of over 26,500 technical experts as members of the technical committees. The standardisation projects are properly screened within BIS to ensure their usefulness.

SUPREME COURT: PROPERTY SOLD LESS THAN MARKET RATE IS CHEATING NATION

With wide ramification for the policy of liberalisation being followed by the government, the Supreme Court has ruled that if government sells country�s assets to private persons or players at a price lesser than their market value, such action amounts to cheating the country.

A bench, comprising Justices Lokeshwar Singh Panta (since retd) and B Sudarshan Reddy, who set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Land Allotment dispute noted "it is well said a struggle to get for the state the full value of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of state owned natural assets to the private sector.

Whenever the government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being cheated; their is simple transfer of wealth from the citizens as a whole to whoever gets the assets at a discount.

GIRLFRIEND IS NOT RELATIVE, CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR DOWRY: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has ruled that a girlfriend or a concubine is not a relative and therefore cannot be prosecuted for an offence under section 498 (A) of the IPC (cruelty for dowry).

A bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and R M Lodha, while allowing the appeal of U Suvetha, in the case of U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, the alleged girlfriend of Tutus Gunaraj the husband of the complainant, in its judgment noted," By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be relative. "The word relative brings within its purview a status. v Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise."

Main question before the Hon'ble Bench was to whether the friend' would be a `relative of husband of a woman' in terms of Section of the Indian Penal Code.


Suvetha had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Madras High court August 1, 2008, which dismissed her petition for discharging the case. Justice Sinha, while writing the 18-page judgment for the bench, however, noted," It is not the case of the first informant that the appellant had any role to play with regard to demand of dowry.

Ingredients of 498A of the Indian Penal Code are :-
a). The woman must be married
b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."

The word cruelty having being defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning, can be attributed there too.Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion , no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a `relative'. The word `relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

The apex court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and concluded by saying, "We would assume that the term husband would bring within its fold a person who is said to have contracted a marriage with another woman and subjected her to cruelty."

Call of the bar

Law graduates are choosing litigation over legal process outsourcing, finds Shabina Akhtar

When Arvind Gupta, a fresh law graduate from the Banaras Hindu University, chose litigation over a legal process outsourcing (LPO) job two years ago, many warned him that he was committing a grave mistake. Then, every fresh law graduate dreamed of working at an LPO. This meant a corporate lifestyle and a great pay package. Now, however, the sector seems to have lost its glitz. Today, many prefer to follow Gupta’s example. A recent survey by Valuenotes, a Pune-based online research aggregator, affirmed the trend. According to the report, despite LPOs surviving the global meltdown and bagging some plum offshore assignments, most law graduates would prefer to join law firms that pay far less. Surprisingly, the survey revealed that despite 45 per cent of the respondents acknowledging that LPOs offer a better pay package, they still considered law firms a better bet in the long run. The remaining 55 per cent did not know very clearly about LPOs. This prejudice and ignorance is making it difficult for LPOs to get the crème-de-la-crème of the 80,000 odd law students who pass out every year in India. “Despite a large number of students graduating every year, the percentage of employable talent is relatively low. With both international and national law firms eyeing this talent pool, LPOs will have a tough time battling it out for quality candidates if law graduates harbour such a negative perception of them,” points out Neerja Kandala, principle analyst for legal services, Valuenotes. The general perception of law students is that LPOs are all about repetitive and process-driven legal work. “I chose not to join an LPO because I always wanted to practice in court. That apart, working as a researcher on foreign law just didn’t appeal to me,” says Gupta, now a Supreme Court consumer advocate. The fear of getting stuck in a rut and not being able to pursue a career in litigation is the other reason students are a bit apprehensive. “I’m afraid that I might not like the work in an LPO. And what happens if I cannot find a litigation job after I decide to quit the LPO sector? So I’m a bit scared,” confesses Shivam Gupta, final-year law student at South City Law College, Calcutta. A fresher working in this sector can draw a monthly salary of between $600 (Rs 29,000) and $900 (Rs 44,000). After gaining some experience, the money can go up to $1,800 (about Rs 90,000). Despite that, and great perks, many like Ameen Jauhar, second-year student of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science, would prefer to give LPOs a miss. “I am prejudiced against LPOs,” he admits. “Maybe because I’ve a conventional outlook, or maybe it’s because LPOs do not offer any scope for litigation. Either way, the sector fails to appeal to me. And despite the corporate lifestyle and hefty pay packet, LPOs don’t attract many law students.” Dinesh Sawant, chief operating officer of the Bangalore-based LPO Clutchgroup, confirms this. “We do face some difficulty during campus recruitment,” he says. “We manage to employ a few through counselling. Then we use their network to pull in more people.” According to him the fact that many LPOs initially recruited lawyers for non-legal work harmed the sector’s credibility. Many, however, do not agree with the Valuenotes survey. “I was quite surprised at the report. We haven’t experienced any such difficulty,” says Vivek Hurry, co-founder of Exactus Corp, Mumbai. “That could be because we recruit students from the top 10 law colleges, who are quite open to such jobs.” Yet even he doesn’t deny that students from mid-ranking law colleges do have apprehensions about the LPO sector. To overcome that, law colleges are developing modules to educate students about LPOs. For instance, the Symbiosis Law School (SLS), Pune, has included comparative law, practical training, data base research, case method and legal analysis in its syllabus to give students an insight into LPOs. However, academics feel that it’s best to work at an LPO only if it is offering quality legal services. “It is a good option only if the firm is utilising law graduates in the right way and not as glorified call centre staff. That apart, they should use it as a launch pad to working for the great legal firms that they outsource for,” points out Shashikala Gurpur, principal, SLS, Pune. If SLS is modifying its curriculum, the Indira Gandhi National University (Ignou), in collaboration with the Mumbai-based legal management house Rainmakers, recently developed a postgraduate diploma programme in LPO. “We created this for those interested in LPOs. With so many law graduates passing out every year, logically it is not possible for everyone to get absorbed in legal firms. LPOs would be a good option for such candidates,” says Srikrishna Deva Rao, director of the School of Law, Ignou, New Delhi. So how many applicants have contacted him so far? “We have received around 100 applications,” he says. Only a 100-odd from 80,000 law students. Clearly, LPOs are no longer a hot career option for those interested in legal services.