1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 24,2025, passed in WPA 4217 of 2025.

2. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judgerecorded that the Director of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Kolkata had admitted that the unfortunate incident with regard to serious complications in the eye sight of several patients who had undergone surgery at the Gardenreach SDH/SSH, Metiabruz (Nadial Hospital) South 24- Parganas, was either due to contamination and presence of micro-organisms in the operative devices or in the solutions or for a faulty method of sterilization of the instruments. However, Her Lordship directed that the writ petitioner should approach the appropriate forum seekingcompensation/damages.

3. Hence the appeal.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits thatvictim compensation is a part of the constitutional framework. State does not enjoy any immunity. For acts of medical negligence during the course of treatment of citizens at government hospitals, State is bound by the principle of strict liability. It is submitted that the constitutional court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct compensation to be paid on account of such gross negligence by theinstrumentalities of the State.

5. Reliance has been placed on several victimcompensation schemes and the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court through which the concept ofconstitutional tort has been developed.

6. Reliance is placed on the enquiry report of themedical board as also the written opinion of theDirector, RIO, MCH Campus, Kolkata.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleadersubmits that the unfortunate incident took place some time ago and the recommendation of the medical board with regard to remedial measures are being strictly followed by the present regime. She submits that the incident took place underthe erstwhile dispensation.

8. We have considered the rival contentions of theparties. The liability of the state cannot beavoided.

9. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,Government of India has implemented several programmes for promotion of eye health and prevention of visual impairment. The State Government had also adopted similar schemes. Undoubtedly, right to eye sight flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant was an electrician by profession. He was self-employed and the sole earning member of his family. He availed of the treatment at a government hospital. Apart from the appellant, other similar victims underwent the same fate. The cataract surgery led to complications, infections and series of treatments. The Director, RIO, MCH, Campus opined that the unfortunate incident took place due to contamination of micro-organisms in the operative devices or in the solutions/fluids and/or for faulty method of sterilization of the instruments. Contemporaneous documents annexed to the writ petition indicate the extensive treatment which the appellant had to undergo after the surgery at Gardenreach State General Hospital and Metiabruz Super-Speciality Hospital. We think it apposite to set out the relevant portionof the report of the Director, RIO, MCH Campus.

“At present (04/07/2024) total 16 (sixteen) patients are admitted in RIO, MCH campus, Kolkata, Pars Plana Vitrectomy was done in seven (07) patients and others are on standard management protocol. All the patients have received Intravitreal antibiotics and are periodically evaluated by the respective units and progression notedaccordingly

5 Regarding OT at Gardenreach SDH/SSH:-

a) Before those days of surgery swabs from OT were sent for culture and sensitivity to SSKM hospital, Kolkata on 24/06/2024 and report received was "nogrowth" on 01/07/2024

b) Hospital authority has sent swabs from eye ward, OT, with consumables (of the same batch) used in the operation theatre on above mentioned days to SSKM hospital on 01/07/2024 and STMH, Kolkata on 02/07