Negligence in Free Eye Camps
In Pushpaleela v. State of Karnataka, the court addressed mass medical negligence at a free cataract eye camp organized by the Lions Club and a social service organization, where 151 patients underwent surgery.
An inquiry found that Government of India safety guidelines were ignored and substandard sterilization caused severe infections, resulting in 72 patients losing sight in one eye and 4 becoming completely blind.
The court awarded interim compensation and monthly stipends, and later, through a PIL, ordered lump-sum damages ranging from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 based on permanent disability.
The case established vicarious liability of the State for negligent medical acts in public welfare camps.
State of Chhattisgarh v. Gajendra Singh
In State of Chhattisgarh v. Gajendra Singh, the court addressed fatal medical negligence during a government-organized sterilization drive.
Meenakshi Devi died after a routine tubectomy at a Primary Health Centre camp in Lailunga due to the cumulative adverse reaction to injections carelessly administered by the doctors.
Applying the doctrine of strict liability, the Chhattisgarh High Court held the State vicariously liable for its medical staff and awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- compensation to the family.
The court emphasized that the State cannot shirk its duty to protect citizens in public welfare programs.
V. Krishnakumar v. State of T.N.
In V. Krishnakumar v. State of T.N., the Supreme Court established state accountability for medical negligence in public healthcare facilities.
The court held that when doctors employed in government hospitals commit negligent acts, the State is vicariously liable because it creates, manages, and administers these institutions through its Department of Health.
Therefore, the State cannot be absolved of its legal obligations or escape liability for the negligence of its medical staff.
Lack of preventive measures
In Suraj Mal Chhajer v. State, the Rajasthan High Court held the government accountable for failing to provide adequate safety gear to healthcare workers.
The petitioner’s 25-year-old daughter, Dr. Veena Chhajer, a resident doctor at a Jodhpur Government Hospital, contracted Hepatitis B while on duty and died.
An inquiry found that her infection could have been prevented through Hepatitis B vaccination and basic protective measures such as disposable syringes, needles, gloves, and aprons.
Holding this a serious administrative lapse, the High Court directed the State to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as interim compensation and ordered an independent High Power Committee to investigate the institutional negligence.
Penis cut off
In C. Sivakumar v. Dr. John Mathur & another, the court addressed surgical medical negligence during treatment for a urinary blockage.
During the operation, the doctor totally severed the patient’s penis, causing severe hemorrhage, inability to pass urine, and permanent impotence.
Holding this extreme carelessness an unambiguous deficiency in service, the court directed the doctor to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- in compensation for the patient’s physical and psychological harm.
Uterus removed without justification
In Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd., the court addressed medical negligence involving an unjustified surgical procedure.
A 40-year-old woman visited the hospital for a painful breast lump, but the doctors removed her uterus without medical justification.
Holding the unauthorized hysterectomy a severe deficiency in service, the court directed the hospital to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for the wrongful removal of her organ.
Foreign matter left behind
In Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., Madras, the court addressed medical negligence involving a foreign object left during surgery.
The plaintiff underwent a hysterectomy at Apollo Hospital, Madras, on June 21, 1991.
After surgery, she developed a painful abdominal lump, but her complaints were initially ignored.
It was later discovered that the surgeon had negligently left an abdominal pack inside her body, requiring a second surgery for removal.
Applying res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), the court held the doctor and hospital liable and awarded Rs. 5,80,000 as damages for her physical pain and mental agony.
A.H. Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra
In A.H. Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, the court addressed a fatal case of medical negligence following a sterilization procedure after childbirth.
The operating doctor negligently left a surgical mop inside the patient’s abdomen, causing severe peritonitis and her death a few days later.
Applying a presumption of negligence, the court held that leaving a foreign object inside a patient established the surgeon’s negligence and made the State, which ran the hospital, vicariously liable.
M/s Soni Hospital v. Arun Balakrishnan
In M/s Soni Hospital v. Arun Balakrishnan, the court addressed surgical medical negligence involving a foreign body retained after surgery.
An abdominal pad was carelessly left inside the patient’s body, causing severe complications, physical pain, and mental agony.
A second surgery was required to remove it, during which the pad bearing the hospital’s label was discovered.
Holding the defendants liable for medical negligence, the court upheld Rs. 3,35,000/- compensation for the plaintiff’s suffering and trauma.
Doctor due to transfusion of blood of a wrong group
In R.P. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, the court addressed medical negligence caused by an incompatible blood transfusion.
Smt. Kamla Sharma was admitted to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, for gallstone surgery.
Although the surgeon advised O +ive blood, hospital staff later negligently administered B +ive blood.
Her condition deteriorated rapidly, causing loss of eyesight and her death.
Holding the State vicariously liable, the court held the government accountable for the negligence of its medical personnel.
Doctor's duty to maintain secrecy
In Dr. Tokugha v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., the court addressed doctor-patient confidentiality and public interest.
The appellant sued Apollo Hospital after it disclosed his HIV(+) status to his fiancée, causing their marriage to be canceled.
The court held that confidentiality is not absolute and may be breached when disclosure is necessary to protect another person’s right to life.
It ruled that the appellant’s right to privacy could not override his prospective bride’s right to be protected from a life-threatening infection.
Failure of Sterilization Operation
Under the law governing medical negligence, the failure of a sterilization operation does not automatically create legal liability, as no sterilization procedure is 100% foolproof.
Pregnancy may occur despite a successful operation without any fault or negligence by the doctor.
Therefore, compensation can be claimed only when specific surgical negligence is proved.
In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court has held that such claims must be examined under Bolam’s test, which requires the surgeon to follow standard and accepted medical practices.
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram
In State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram, the court considered a claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the State and a lady surgeon following the birth of a child after tubectomy.
As the plaintiffs failed to prove medical negligence and the surgery was performed using standard techniques, the court treated it as a natural failure of sterilization.
Citing a catena of cases and expert opinions, the court noted that sterilization is not 100% foolproof and has a known failure rate of 5% to 6%.
Therefore, without proven negligence, no compensation could be granted, and the child was not legally considered “unwanted” after the parents knowingly continued the pregnancy.
Smt. Sita Devi v. State of H.P.
In Smt. Sita Devi v. State of H.P., a woman underwent tubectomy after being informed that sterilization could naturally fail.
Despite the procedure, fertilization occurred and she gave birth to a child.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that, as natural failure was a known medical possibility and informed consent had been given, the doctor could not be held responsible, and the case did not constitute medical negligence.
State of Chhattisgarh v. Manju Bai
