Board Consultation Mandatory Before Withholding Pension Of Retired Employee Under General Insurance Pension Scheme: Delhi High Court Simultaneous Pursuit Of Two Qualifications Not A Ground For Termination In Absence Of Statutory Bar: Allahabad High Court Trade Marks Act Makes No Distinction Between House Marks And Trade Marks: Bombay High Court Limitation For Recovery Of Earnest Money Reckoned From Date Of Contract Repudiation, Not Execution Of Agreement: Delhi High Court State Electricity Commissions Must Treat Ministry’s RPO Capping Directives As Material Factors; Cannot Ignore Guidance: Andhra Pradesh High Court Direction To Deposit Rents Cannot Be Sought In Title Suit If Not Prayed For In Main Relief, Especially After 5-Year Delay: Andhra Pradesh High Court Charity Commissioner Has Power To Appoint Interim Committee & Stay Elections If Management Functions Beyond Tenure: Bombay High Court Rape Case Quashed As Complainant Voluntarily Accompanied Accused To Hotel & Refused Medical Exam: Calcutta High Court Plaintiffs Cannot Create Illusory Cause Of Action Through Clever Drafting To Save Time-Barred Suits: Karnataka High Court Surcharge Proceedings Under AP Cooperative Societies Act Not Applicable To District Bank Employees For Lapses In Primary Societies: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Compensation If Land Acquisition Proceedings Are Abandoned & Property Excluded From Final Notification: Karnataka High Court Law Is Above You, No Matter How High: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Tourism Hub In Visakhapatnam CRZ NDPS Act | Karnataka High Court Grants Bail On Ground Of Parity To Accused Found With Lesser Quantity Than Co-Accused Section 138 NI Act Offence Can Be Compounded Even After Conviction; High Court Has Discretion To Waive Costs In Exceptional Cases: Punjab & Haryana HC NEET (UG) 2026: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Reopen Payment Portal For Candidate Who Waited Till Last Date To Pay Fees Importers Can't Escape Penalties For Using False Documents Merely By Opting For Re-Export: Madras High Court Long Incarceration No Ground For Bail In Crimes That Shock Collective Conscience: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Bail To Shubam Sangra In Kathua Case

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