Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: 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