CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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

 

Latest Legal News