Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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