Procedural Lapses and Prolonged Incarceration Justify Bail Under NDPS Act: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Deposit of Sale Balance Is Not Fatal to Specific Performance Claims: Andhra High Court Justice Requires Insurance Company to Pay and Recover: Calcutta High Court on Fatal Accident Case IBC Moratorium Nullifies Vicarious Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act: Delhi High Court Fraud Unravels All: Partition Decree Set Aside for Suppressing Rights of Co-Owners: Madras High Court Matters of Evidence Must Be Examined at Trial, Not Preemptively Quashed: Kerala High Court Declines Quashment Leave Encashment Is a Property Right and Cannot Be Denied Without Statutory Authority: Gujarat High Court Widow's Right to Deceased Husband’s Property Ceases Upon Remarriage Before 1956: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Reassessment of Departmental Inquiries by Courts, Orders Interest on Delayed GPF Payments: P&H High Court Investigations Initiated Before BNSS, 2023, Must Proceed Under Cr.P.C., 1973: Rajasthan High Court Third-Party Objector’s Locus Standi in Criminal Cases Must Have a Bona Fide Connection: Madhya Pradesh High Court Amendments After Trial Commences Barred Without Demonstration of Due Diligence - Contradictory Claims Cannot Be Permitted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Double Presumption of Innocence in Appeals Against Acquittals Must Be Respected: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape and Carnal Intercourse Case Provisional Release Not Prejudice Revenue Interests: Kerala High Court Permits Provisional Release of Seized Goods Under GST Act GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without Objective Criteria:  Delhi High Court Neither the Statutory Framework nor Lease Terms Compel Conveyance of Property: Supreme Court Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme Court

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

 

Similar News