THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Ashok Kr. Sen S/O. Lt. Adhik Ch. Sen – Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam And 3 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 7239 of 2017
Decided On : 27-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of medical negligence and surgery outcomes (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. enquiry report shows complications post-surgery (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. state offers compensation despite lack of negligence finding (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. fundamental right to health recognized (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. direction to pay compensation within specified timeframe (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Assam and Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department.
2. These writ petitions have been filed seeking monetary compensation to the petitioners alleging gross medical negligence by the treating doctors while undertaking the eye surgery at B. P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon (which is a government hospital under the State of Assam).
3. Having considered that the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar on facts and laws, same are taken up analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The petitioners, hailing from economically backward strata of the society, were suffering from the eye ailment and got themselves admitted in the B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon, a Government hospital under the State of Assam. The doctors in the B.P. Civil Hospital had undertaken cataract surgeries on the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7239/2017 on 07.03.2017 & 10.03.2017; petitioners in WP(C) No. 863/2020 on 08.02.2017, 08.03.2017, 08.03.2017 & 09.03.2017; and petitioner in WP(C) No. 1910/2020 on 09.03.2017, and were discharged on different dates, particularly on 08.03.2017, 11.03.2017; 10.03.2017, 09.03.2017, 09.03.2017; and 09.03.2017, & 10.03.2017, respectively.
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that after their cataract surgeries and discharge from B.P. Civil Hospital, they were confronted with severe irritation in their eyes upon which they were operated and were taken back to the said Civil Hospital by the friends and relatives. On examination by the treating doctor, it was informed that the cataract surgeries, which was undertaken, were improperly done. Accordingly, the petitioners were referred to Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati which they had to rush to Guwahati. On examination at Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya Hospital, it further came to light that the cataract operation, which was undertaken upon the petitioners by the doctors of B.P. Civil Hospital, was not properly conducted and to prevent further deterioration, it was advised that further surgery had to be conducted for removal of affected eye. Thereafter, the petitioners, on different dates, had undergone surgery at Sri Sankardeva Nethralaya Hospital for removal of the affected eyes. It is the contention of the petitioners that they had to lose their eyes without any fault on their part. Under the circumstances, the petitioners claim for monetary compensation under the public law remedy.
6. The Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, has placed the enquiry report conducted with regard to the incidence of post cataract surgery complications following cataract surgery of the petitioners at B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon pertaining to the period from 07.03.2017 to 11.03.2017 by way of an affidavit.
7. A perusal of the enquiry report indicates that out of the total 41 cases operated, 13 persons had developed complications and were ultimately treated at Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati. The findings indicates certain deficiency in the hospital so far as the eye operation theatre and therefore the enquiry committee recommended that eye operation theatre at B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon to remain closed till the microbiological clearance is available and fulfillment of the renovation and improvement of the eye operation theatre infrastructure etc.
8. The State respondents, vide communication dated 04.11.2025 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department, Dispur, t
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity -vs- State of West Bengal
Nilabati Behera alias Lalita behera -vs- State of Orissa & Ors.
The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, allowing compensation claims for human rights violations even in the absence of negligence.
The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, warranting compensation for violations even without proving negligence by the State.
The State is liable for negligence leading to medical malpractice infringing fundamental rights, mandating compensation under Article 21.
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
A medical practitioner cannot be held liable for negligence without substantial evidence proving standard of care was not met.
Medical Negligence – Doctors should carefully and honestly listen to complaints of patients and try to redress the same – No credible reliance can be put on respondent’s written version which was not....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.