Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Batakrishna Paul - Appellant
Versus
Laxmibala Paul - Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 255 and 256 of 2009 and 36 and 38 of 2010Decided On : 21-11-2014
Negligence - Medical Negligence - Legal Services Authorities Act - Section 22(C), Section 22(E)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved four writ petitions related to medical negligence and compensation claims for loss of eyes due to alleged negligence during cataract surgery. The Lok Adalat awarded compensation to the petitioners, which was challenged by the original opposite parties (OPs) in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of negligence in the case of one petitioner, leading to the upheld compensation award. However, the court set aside the compensation award for the other petitioner due to lack of prima facie evidence of negligence.
Issues: The court discussed issues related to the maintainability of the proceeding, negligence or deficiency in service, postoperative complications, entitlement to relief, and quantum of relief for the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of judicial review, the need for prima facie evidence of negligence, and the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed one writ petition, setting aside the compensation award, and dismissed the other writ petitions, upholding the compensation award.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. The batch of four writ petitions were taken up together for hearing and disposal since a common judgment was passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Agartala, in Lok Adalat(PUS) No. 4 of 2007 and Lok Adalat(PUS) No. 6 of 2007, which were instituted on a subject of Public Utility Services and common question of law and fact involved in all the writ petitions and hence this single judgment shall govern all the four writ petitions.
2. Respondent No. 1 of WP(C) No. 255 of 2009 and WP(C) No. 36 of 2010, Smti. Laxmi Bala Paul, as petitioner(hereinafter mentioned as original petitioner) instituted Lok Adalat (PUS) No. 4 of 2007 against the writ petitioners(hereinafter mentioned as original opposite parties, for short OPs) claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the loss of right eye alleging negligence on the part of the OPs, i.e. the writ petitioners.
Similarly, respondent No. 1 of WP(C) No. 256 of 2009 and WP(C) No. 38 of 2010, Sri Narayan Chandra Saha as petitioner(hereinafter mentioned as original petitioner) instituted Lok Adalat (PUS) No. 6 of 2007 before Permanent Lok Adalat, Agartala against the writ petitioners(hereinafter mentioned as original opposite parties, for short OPs) claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the loss of left eye alleging negligence on the part of the OPs, i.e. the writ petitioners.
3. The Permanent Lok Adalat disposed both the cases by a common judgment and award dated 07.03.2009 and 08.06.2009 respectively. The original OP No. 1 Dr. Bata Krishna Paul challenged the judgment and award of the Lok Adalat by filing WP(C) No. 255 of 2009 and WP(C) No. 256 of 2009. Similarly, the original OP Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Director of Health Services and the State of Tripura also challenged the judgment and award by filing WP(C) No. 36 of 2010 and WP(C) No. 38 of 2010. The Lok Adalat awarded compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh to the original petitioner, Laxmi Bala Paul and awarded Rs.3.00 lakhs to the original petitioner, Narayan Chandra Saha. It is also directed by the Lok Adalat that original OP No. 1, Dr. Bata Krishna Paul shall pay 50 percent of the awarded amount and the original OP Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Director of Health Services and the State of Tripura shall pay the rest 50 percent of the awarded compensation to the original petitioners.
4. There are certain admitted undisputed facts. Those are:-
"4.1. Original OP No. 1 Dr. Bata Krishna Paul is a specialist Ophthalmologist, a medical officer attached with IGM Hospital under the original OP Nos. 2 and 3. The original petitioner of Lok Adalat(PUS) No. 4 of 2007, Laxmi Bala Paul attended the private chamber of Dr. Bata Krishna Paul on 24.01.2006 for cataract problem and as per advice of Dr. Paul she got admitted herself at IGM Hospital on 03.06.2006 for cataract operation under Dr. Paul. Similarly, the original petitioner, Narayan Chandra Saha of Lok Adalat Case(PUS) No. 6 of 2007 attended the private chamber of Dr. Bata Krishna Paul on 20.03.2006 for similar cataract problem and he was also advised to admit at IGM Hospital by Dr. Pal and accordingly he admitted in the hospital on 03.06.2006. Dr. Paul has done cataract operation of both the original petitioners on 05.06.2006, in the right eye of Laxmi Bala Paul and in the left eye of Narayan Chandra Saha. They were discharged from the hospital on 06.06.2006 with advice to attend the OPD after a week.
4.2. It is also an admitted rather an undisputed fact that on 07.06.2006 both the original petitioners having severe complication in the operated eyes attended the hospital and Dr. Paul examined the patients and found postoperative Endophthalmitis developed in the operated eyes of the patients and that for managing such patients Tertiary Eye Care Centre is required which is not available at IGM Hospital and therefore Dr. Paul immediately referred both the original petitioners to Sankardeva Netralaya, Guwahati for further treatment which is a referral hospital for the purpose. Both the original petitioners at
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
