Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
E KARDAK ETE
Ashok Kr. Sen S/O. Lt. Adhik Ch. Sen – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Deptt. Of Health – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of negligence after cataract surgeries. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. enquiry report on surgery complications. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. compensation determination for affected patients. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. state's acknowledgment and willingness to compensate. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 5. fundamental right to health under article 21. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. order for compensation payment timeline. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
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 a
The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, warranting compensation for violations even without proving negligence by the State.
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 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....
Medical negligence – Simply for reason that patient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by Doctor or that surgery has failed, Doctor cannot be held liable for medical ne....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
