Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Mere Execution Of Document Claiming Disputed Title Not 'Forgery'; False Claim Of Ownership Isn't 'False Document' U/S 464 IPC: Supreme Court Riding Triple On Motorcycle Does Not Per Se Amount To Contributory Negligence Without Evidence It Caused Accident: Uttarakhand High Court Absence Of Registration Of Sale Agreement Does Not Neutralize Allegations Of Fraud; Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail In Property Fraud Case Order 8 Rule 9 | Defendant Cannot Introduce Inconsistent Stand Via Additional Written Statement To Bypass Bar On Amending Pleadings After Trial: Supreme Court Constitutional Courts Can Impose Fixed-Term Sentence In Lieu Of Life Imprisonment If Period Exceeds 14 Years: Supreme Court Disciplinary Proceedings Are 'Pending' Only After Issuance Of Chargesheet; Rejection Of VRS Notice Requires Proper Application Of Mind: Supreme Court Section 304B IPC | Conviction Cannot Be Based On Unverified Letters Allegedly Written By Deceased Without Proof Of Handwriting: Supreme Court Investigating Agency Must Seek Magistrate’s Permission For Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CrPC: Supreme Court Public Servant’s Act Of Disarming Victims During Mass Violence Amounts To Abetment; Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Of Circle Officer Every Member Of Unlawful Assembly Vicariously Liable For Acts Committed In Prosecution Of Common Object: Supreme Court NI Act | Office Bearers Who Signed MoUs Or Financial Docs Can Be Prosecuted Even If They Didn't Sign The Bounced Cheque: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | Mere Designation As Office Bearer Not Sufficient For Vicarious Liability, Specific Role Must Be Disclosed: Supreme Court Administrative Office Orders Cannot Override Express Terms Of Concluded Contracts: Allahabad High Court Long Possession Alone Not Enough For Adverse Possession; 'Animus Possidendi' To Hold Against True Owner Essential: Delhi High Court Major Earning Sons Entitled To Compensation For Parent’s Death Even If Not Financially Dependent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Advocates Running Office From Residence Not Liable To Pay Commercial Electricity Rates: Madhya Pradesh High Court Absence Of Magistrate's Signature Or Seal On Contraband Inventory Renders Seizure Doubtful: Kerala High Court Election Commission Empowered To Conduct SIR Of Electoral Rolls; Can Conduct Limited Enquiry Into Citizenship: Supreme Court

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