Habeas Corpus Petition Not Maintainable To Trace An Absconding Accused Evading Arrest: Allahabad High Court Section 33(2)(b) ID Act: Industrial Tribunal Cannot Reject Approval For Dismissing Corrupt Employee Over Minor Deficit In One Month's Wages, Holds Bombay High Court Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Unreserved Vacancy Without Securing Higher Marks Than General Cut-Off: Calcutta High Court Condition Restricting Use Of CENVAT Credit For Duty Payment During Default Period Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Substantive Complaint Under DV Act; Summons Can't Be Refused Solely Due To Omissions In DIR: Delhi High Court Defence Evidence Not Inherently Inferior To Prosecution Evidence, Accused Need Not Prove Alibi To The Hilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 80-Year-Old In POCSO Case Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Restrain Trade Union Strike; Employer Can Approach Industrial Tribunal Under IR Code During Conciliation: Karnataka High Court Army Personnel Exposed To Radiation During Service Entitled To Disability Pension For Leukemia: Kerala High Court Failure To Give Opportunity To Accused To Explain Disproportionate Assets Is Fatal To Prosecution: Madras High Court Acquits Customs Officer Family Court Can Grant Maintenance To Major Unmarried Daughter Even If Application Filed Under Section 125 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Framing Charges Solely On Oral Testimony Despite Contradictory Medical Evidence Impermissible Without Recorded Reasons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Vehicle Seized For Alleged Cattle Cruelty Can't Be Left To Rot; Prima Facie Ownership Established Via Registration & Insurance Docs: Orissa High Court Labeling Perennial Work As 'Outsourced' To Deny Regularization Is Unconstitutional; State Can't Act Like Private Employer: Telangana High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Merely Required To Establish 'Probable Defence' To Shift Burden Of Proof Onto Complainant: Madras High Court Protests Or Being Branded A 'Traitor' Do Not Establish Threat To Life Ipso Facto: Punjab & Haryana High Court On Security Cover

Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation

07 December 2025 11:50 AM

By: Admin


“A claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy... is distinct from, and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for tort.”— In a seminal ruling the Gauhati High Court, comprising Justice Kardak Ete, ordered the State of Assam to pay compensation to seven victims who lost their eyesight following botched cataract surgeries at a Government Civil Hospital.

The petitioners, belonging to economically weaker sections, underwent cataract surgeries at B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon, between March 7 and March 10, 2017, under the National Programme for Control of Blindness (NPCB). Post-surgery, they developed severe irritation and complications. Upon being referred to Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati, it was discovered that the surgeries were improperly conducted, necessitating the removal of the affected eyes to prevent further infection.

The Enquiry and State’s Admission

An enquiry report submitted by the Director of Health Services revealed that out of 41 cases operated, 13 developed severe complications. The report highlighted deficiencies in the hospital's infrastructure, specifically the Eye Operation Theatre, recommending its closure until renovation.

While the report did not explicitly pin "negligence" on a specific doctor, it acknowledged the institutional failure. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, fairly admitted liability and proposed a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- per victim.

Public Law Remedy

Justice Ete invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (1996) and Nilabati Behera (1993). The Court emphasized that when fundamental rights are violated by the State or its instrumentalities—even through medical negligence in a welfare scheme—the Constitutional Courts have the power to award monetary compensation as a public law remedy. This is independent of any private tort claim.

Acknowledging the State's benevolent stance to pay without contesting the negligence claim further, the Court directed the State of Assam to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) to each of the seven petitioners (or their legal heirs) within six weeks. The Court clarified that this relief extends to all similarly placed victims of this incident, irrespective of whether they approached the Court.

Date of Decision: 27th November, 2025

Latest Legal News