The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom has awarded compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a affected person who suffered lack of imaginative and prescient following cataract surgical procedure at a authorities hospital, holding that the State can’t escape legal responsibility for medical negligence dedicated by its hospitals.
A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee noticed that the appellant, an electrician and the only real incomes member of his household, had suffered severe financial loss and lack of future prospects because of the issues following surgical procedure.
The Courtroom held that the appropriate to eyesight flows from the appropriate to life assured underneath Article 21 of the Structure and that the State has an obligation to supply satisfactory infrastructure and services in its hospitals.
The enchantment arose from an order handed by a Single Decide in July 2025, which had directed the petitioner to strategy the suitable discussion board for claiming compensation.
The appellant challenged the order, arguing that compensation might be awarded underneath the constitutional treatment for violation of basic rights and that the State couldn’t declare immunity for medical negligence at authorities hospitals.
The Bench examined the medical information and experiences in regards to the cataract surgical procedures performed at Gardenreach State Normal Hospital and Metiabruz Tremendous-Speciality Hospital, also called Nadial Hospital, in South 24-Parganas.
The surgical procedures have been performed on June 28, 2024. The Courtroom famous that 44 sufferers had undergone remedy on the hospital, out of whom 22 suffered visible impairment.
The Director of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Kolkata, had opined that the unlucky incident might have occurred as a result of contamination by microorganisms within the operative gadgets or options, or as a result of defective sterilisation of devices.
The Courtroom additionally thought-about the report of the medical board-cum-enquiry committee. Though the board had noticed that no medical negligence had taken place, it had really helpful a number of remedial measures, together with modifications to the operation theatre, coaching of nursing workers and OT attendants, day by day sterilisation and autoclaving of devices, and the supply of devoted workers.
The Bench noticed that these suggestions themselves indicated that the hospital was neither prepared nor adequately geared up to conduct eye surgical procedures.
“We’re stunned to seek out that the board was of the view that no medical negligence had taken place,” the Courtroom noticed, noting that the discovering was opposite to the Director’s report and the medical historical past and remedy information of the sufferers.
The Courtroom additional noticed that the hospital had been closed since July 2024 and that the medical board had really helpful modifications to the OT entrance, wash basin and utility room. It additionally famous the absence of educated and devoted nursing workers and OT attendants.
“There was sheer negligence on the a part of the hospital authorities and in addition the state authorities, in permitting surgical procedure with out correct examine and measure,” the Bench held.
The Courtroom discovered that the appellant had suffered lack of imaginative and prescient which had rendered him partially blind and that the harm had affected his means to maintain himself and his household.
The Bench held that the State’s legal responsibility couldn’t be averted and that the case fell inside the scope of a public regulation treatment for violation of basic rights.
“Proper to life and livelihood contains proper to dwell with dignity and revel in good well being. Good high quality of life is embedded in proper to life. Lack of eye sight has affected the standard of the lifetime of the appellant,” the Courtroom noticed.
The Courtroom held that the State was vicariously answerable for the actions of the hospital and that the infrastructural gaps and lack of supervision demonstrated rash and negligent conduct.
“That is an act of constitutional tort. State is responsibility sure to supply all infrastructural services to run the State hospitals,” the Bench held.
The Courtroom relied on the Supreme Courtroom’s selections in D.Okay. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal.
Referring to the precept laid down in Nilabati Behera, the Bench noticed {that a} declare for compensation in public regulation for violation of basic rights was distinct from a non-public regulation declare for damages and that sovereign immunity was not accessible as a defence.
The Courtroom additionally relied on Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa to carry that working a hospital was a welfare exercise and never an train of sovereign energy. The State, subsequently, might be held vicariously answerable for negligence by its medical doctors or workers.
The Bench noticed that constitutional courts have an obligation to guard basic rights and that financial compensation might be awarded as a mode of redressal the place applicable.
“Courts have an obligation to do full justice and on such precept, we’re empowered to award financial compensation as a mode of redressal and a balm to the wound,” the Courtroom held.
The enchantment was accordingly allowed, and the Single Decide’s order was put aside to the extent that it had relegated the appellant to an applicable discussion board.
The State was directed to pay Rs 5 lakh to the appellant inside eight weeks by account payee cheque, demand draft or RTGS. The Courtroom directed that if the quantity was not paid inside the stipulated interval, the appellant can be entitled to easy curiosity at 6% every year from the date of the order till precise cost.
The Courtroom clarified that the compensation was awarded after contemplating the bills incurred throughout remedy, lack of future prospects and the truth that the appellant was the only real bread-earner of the household.
Case: Gobinda Chandra Debnath Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: F.M.A. 1457 of 2025
