Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Imposes Costs on Doctor for False Representation in Medical Negligence Case, Upholds 12% Interest on Compensation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the principles of justice and accountability in cases of medical negligence. The apex court, in its decision dated 29th January 2024, upheld the compensation awarded to the appellant, P.C. Jain, who suffered loss of vision due to alleged medical negligence by respondent Dr. R.P. Singh. The court, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, modified the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order by reinstating the 12% interest rate on the compensation and additionally imposed costs on the respondent for false representation.

The case, which revolved around a surgical procedure conducted by Dr. Singh that resulted in the appellant losing vision in his left eye, saw multiple legal challenges, including issues of jurisdiction and the quantum of compensation. Initially, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad, granted compensation to Jain, which was later challenged on jurisdictional grounds.

The Supreme Court observed, "In the background of the aforesaid facts, the issue regarding the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh having committed medical negligence in treating the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain is no longer res integra," thus affirming the findings of medical negligence.

Addressing the long-drawn litigation and the suffering of the appellant, the court stated, "The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain who is 84 years of age as on date claims to have suffered loss of vision in the left eye owing to the gross medical negligence committed by respondent-Dr. R.P. Singh in a surgical procedure which was undertaken way back in the year 2002-2003. He has been contesting this long drawn out litigation for a rightful claim of compensation for more than 20 years."

Further, the court harshly criticized the conduct of Dr. Singh, who had misrepresented facts to the NCDRC. "As the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh procured the order under review dated 22nd July, 2022 by making a false representation that the amount of compensation had been paid to the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain, we impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh," read the judgment.

Date of Decision: 29th January 2024

P.C. Jain VS Dr. R.P. Singh

 

Latest Legal News