-
by sayum
17 February 2026 8:32 AM
“Compensation Must Reflect Reasonable Assessment of Loss, Not Mere Speculation” – Supreme Court of India delivered a nuanced judgment in a medical negligence case. While upholding the finding of negligence by Kamineni Hospitals and its doctor, the Court significantly reduced the hospital’s liability, underlining that compensation must be evidence-based and reasonable, not excessive.
The judgment carries crucial observations on the evidentiary standard required in medical negligence claims and on the principles governing the quantification of compensation in consumer disputes.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the father of a deceased 27-year-old B.Tech graduate, who had died allegedly due to negligence in treatment provided by Kamineni Hospitals, Hyderabad. The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (APSCDRC) had initially held both the hospital and the treating doctor, Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar, guilty of medical negligence and awarded a total compensation of ₹20 lakhs.
On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) affirmed this finding, fixing ₹15 lakhs to be paid by the hospital and ₹5 lakhs by the doctor. Challenging the finding of negligence and quantum of compensation, the hospital approached the Supreme Court.
Whether the hospital could be held vicariously liable for medical negligence in absence of expert medical evidence, and whether the compensation awarded was excessive or arbitrary?
The hospital contended that:
“Once a reasonably competent practitioner had taken caution and due care... the guilt of medical negligence cannot be said to be made out against the doctor as well as the hospital.”
It argued that no expert testimony or reliable medical literature had been produced by the complainant to substantiate the charge of negligence.
The Supreme Court, however, after reviewing the records and evidence, held:
“It is apparent that there is ample evidence as well as records to indicate that there was indeed medical negligence at the end of the Appellant and Respondent no.2.”
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the findings of the APSCDRC and NCDRC regarding negligence.
Yet, the Court raised serious concerns over the quantum of compensation. Referring to the deceased’s modest earnings and early career stage, the Court emphasized:
“In the beginning, when youngsters start their career, generally, humble short steps are taken… he had the qualification and potentiality for earning higher income in future.”
Still, the Court found that ₹15 lakhs imposed on the hospital was excessive in the absence of documentary evidence, noting:
“The amount as has been assessed… is on the higher side and that too without any evidence with supportive documents.”
While affirming the liability of the hospital and the doctor, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the compensation and held:
“We are thus of the considered view that the amount of ₹10 lakhs as stands deposited in this Court by the Appellant along with the accrued interest thereon would serve the interest of justice.”
The Court noted that ₹10 lakhs had already been deposited in the Registry of the Court by the hospital, and directed its disbursement to the complainant with accrued interest. The ₹5 lakhs compensation imposed on the doctor had already been paid and was not disturbed.
Thus, while maintaining the finding of negligence, the Court rationalized the quantum of compensation in line with judicial caution and fairness.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reaffirms two essential principles:
Medical negligence must be substantiated through objective evidence, not mere inference.
Compensation must balance the principles of restitution and reasonableness, avoiding speculative or inflated assessments.
This decision provides critical guidance to consumer forums on how to adjudicate medical negligence claims with judicial discipline and evidentiary rigor.
Date of Decision: April 22, 2025
