Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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