Back
holds State strictly liable for loss of eyesight due to hospital negligence
A Division Bench of the has allowed an appeal by a patient who lost his eyesight after cataract surgery at a government hospital, awarding ₹5,00,000 in compensation and holding the State strictly liable for the .
The Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee set aside a single judge's order that had relegated the appellant, Gobindra Chandra Debnath, to civil remedies. The Court ruled that the right to eyesight flows directly from 's guarantee of the , and that the State cannot hide behind when fundamental rights are violated.
The Tragic Chain of Events
Debnath, a self-employed electrician and sole breadwinner of his family, underwent cataract surgery on , at the , a government facility. The surgery led to serious complications. Of the 44 patients operated on in the same period, 22 suffered visual impairment. Debnath was among those who lost vision in the affected eye, rendering him partially blind.
An enquiry by the Director of the
, found that the incident was
"due to contamination of micro-organisms in the operative devices/solution including fluids and/or faulty method of sterilisation of the instruments."
A medical board subsequently recommended infrastructural changes—including reconfiguring the operation theatre entrance, ensuring daily autoclaving, and requiring dedicated, trained nursing staff—but paradoxically concluded that there was "no medical negligence."
The High Court found this conclusion
"bereft of any reason and not supported by any contemporaneous documents."
The same board that recommended foot washes, foot covers, and staff orientation had certified the hospital as safe for surgery despite lacking basic infrastructure.
Arguments Before the Court
Appellant's counsel, led by , argued that victim compensation is part of the constitutional framework and that the State bears for medical negligence in government hospitals. They relied on a line of judgments establishing the concept of under .
The State, represented by Ld. GP , submitted that the incident occurred under the "erstwhile dispensation" and that remedial measures were now being implemented.
The Court rejected the attempt to shift blame, stating,
"The liability of the state cannot be avoided."
Legal Analysis: and
The Court drew on four landmark precedents to affirm that the State is for the negligent acts of its hospital employees. In , the held that is not available when fundamental rights are infringed, and compensation is a "." clarified that public law remedies for constitutional torts are distinct from private law damages. specifically held that running a hospital is not a sovereign function, so the State is for its doctors' negligence. Finally, established that failure to provide timely medical treatment violates .
Applying these principles, the Court observed that the hospital's lack of trained staff, proper sterilization, and adequate infrastructure constituted "." The risks taken to perform surgeries on poor citizens without proper checks demonstrated "" by both the hospital authorities and the state government.
Key Observations
The Court's judgment contains several powerful statements on the State's duty:
"Undoubtedly, right to eye sight flows from the guaranteed under of the ... The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of to which the defence of is not available."
"This is an act of . State is duty bound to provide all infrastructural facilities to run the State hospitals."
"The loss of vision has caused serious monetary loss to the appellant and has negated any future prospect. He cannot sustain himself and his family, with a steady income."
"Constitutional courts have an obligation to protect and uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts have a duty to do and on such principle, we are empowered to award monetary compensation as a mode of redressal and a ."
Final Decision and Implications
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the single judge's order, and directed the State to pay ₹5,00,000 to Debnath within eight weeks by account payee cheque or RTGS. If payment is delayed, simple interest at 6% per annum will accrue from the date of the order. The compensation was calculated considering treatment expenses, loss of future prospects, and Debnath's role as sole breadwinner.
The ruling reinforces that constitutional courts can award monetary relief without forcing impoverished victims into lengthy civil litigation. It also sends a clear message that government hospitals must maintain basic infrastructure and trained staff, or face for the consequences. The 's existing programmes for eye health, the Court noted, cannot be allowed to be undermined by "callousness" in execution.
