Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court holds insurance company liable for medical negligence compensation

03 September 2024 10:00 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment in Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Prem Prakash Rajagaria & Ors., has held that an insurance company is liable to reimburse compensation to the extent agreed under the policy when the doctors in whose name the policy had been issued were held to be negligent by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The case involved the death of a patient due to alleged medical negligence on the part of the appellant-hospital and the doctors who were working under it. The NCDRC had held the appellant-hospital and the doctors as negligent and ordered payment of compensation in a specific manner against the respondents before it.

The appellant-hospital had appealed against the NCDRC judgment before the Supreme Court, challenging the finding of negligence against the doctors. However, the Supreme Court found no other material available on record to arrive at a different conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The Court clarified that the insurance company, which had issued the policy in favour of the doctors, would have to reimburse compensation to the extent of the liability under the policy as the doctors were also arrayed as respondents in the NCDRC and held to be negligent.

The Court modified the NCDRC's order to hold the insurance company liable to the extent agreed under the policy, and the appellant-hospital jointly and severally liable with other respondents for the remaining compensation. The Court ordered the release of the amount in deposit before it to respondent No.1 with accrued interest and directed the appellant-hospital and the insurance company to pay the balance of the amount payable as per the judgment in terms of their respective liability within four weeks.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the liability of an insurance company when a policy is issued in favour of doctors who are held to be negligent in a medical malpractice case. It also highlights the importance of ensuring proper medical care and taking responsibility for any negligence, as well as the need for insurance coverage to protect against such events.

Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Prem Prakash Rajagaria & Ors.

Latest Legal News