Consumer Protection: Medical negligence – Liability of Hospital – Appellant a charitable hospital conducted an eye camp and performed cataract surgeries on 112 patients – Patients complained of negligence in performance of surgeries by use of non-sterilized appliances, contaminated medicines and lenses of an inferior quality resulting in eye infections and loss of vision – State Government appointed a Committee to enquire into the causes which led, inter alia, to several patients having lost their eye-sight – Consumer complaints instituted by consumer organization against the hospital and the insurer – Doctors had insurance policies to cover claims of professional negligence – Doctors were not parties to the proceedings before the District Forum though affidavits were filed by them – District Forum held that according to the report of the Expert Committee, negligence of the doctors and the staff of the appellant hospital was established and passed an award of compensation – District Forum held that the liability of both the hospital and the insurer would be joint and several, but the award would be enforced only against the insurer – Award was not challenged by Hospital – State Commission dismissed the insurer’s appeal – NCDRC set aside order holding the insurer liable – It, however, clarified that this would not affect the directions fastening liability on the Hospital – In arriving at this conclusion, the NCDRC noted that the liability has been fastened on the Hospital on the basis of six professional indemnity policies obtained by the doctors, though their business addresses were shown to be Vaduwala Eye Hospital – NCDRC held that this fact could not by itself fasten the liability on the insurer, particularly in the absence of any specific allegation of negligence against any of the doctors – Instant appeals filed by Hospital – Held: The insurance policies were obtained by the doctors – These were professional indemnity insurance policies COMPANY LTD.
which would cover a claim for professional negligence which was made against the doctors – Admittedly, finding of negligence, as it appears from the order of the State Commission, is specifically against the hospital – The finding is that the hospital and its staff were negligent in the conduct of the cataract surgeries – The specific finding is that the equipment which was used were not properly sterilized, the staff was not properly trained and the medicines which were administered were not of the requisite quality and were contaminated – The hospital was not the beneficiary of the insurance policies which were obtained by the doctors to cover the discharge of their own professional obligations – A joint and several liability could not have been fastened on the insurer under insurance policies which were not obtained by the hospital – No interference with the order of NCDRC called for.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Admittedly, the finding of negligence, as it appears from the order of the State Commission, is specifically against the hospital. The finding is that the hospital and its staff were negligent in the conduct of the cataract surgeries. The specific finding is that the equipment which was used were not properly sterilized, the staff was not properly trained and the medicines which were administered were not of the requisite quality and were contaminated. In this backdrop, the issue is whether the hospital could have claimed to be indemnified by the insurer. The hospital was not the beneficiary of the insurance policies which were obtained by the doctors to cover the discharge of their own professional obligations. There was a manifest error on the part of the District Forum as well as the State Commission. The NCDRC had a valid basis to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. While it is true that the NCDRC has interfered in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, it was justified in doing so since a joint and several liability could not have been fastened on the insurer under insurance policies which were not obtained by the hospital. The submission of the hospital that it was the beneficiary of those insurance policies does not evidently have any basis. [Paras 14, 15][122-A-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.