Supreme Court sets aside HC order directing Rs 25 lakh compensation for Gross Medical Negligence

The HC, while considering the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), had directed the doctors of S.R.N. Hospital to pay Rs 25 lakhs as compensation to the father of a 25-year-old man who died due to alleged medical negligence.

Observing that the way the PIL was initiated and dealt with by the HC was not a proper remedy, the top court bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha set aside the HC's order and noted, "We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting-aside the findings and the conclusions in the judgment under appeal about negligence on part of the hospital and the treating doctors and the operative directions"

The case concerned a 25 years old practicing advocate in the Allahabad High Court, who died on 30.10.2016 as a result of the alleged negligence on the part of the treating doctors and the hospital where he had got admitted for medical attention.

Also Read: Medical Negligence: Pediatrician relieved by Consumer court accused in Voveran injection case

Live Law adds that the doctors of the S.R.N. Medical College allegedly diagnosed the patient wrongly and administered the patient with 'broad spectrum antibiotic', which was not prescribed in dengue fever in the State Government guidelines. As a result of it, the patient allegedly died.

Following this, the father of the deceased had written to one of the High Court judges and consequently, the Public Interest Litigation was registered by the High Court.

In the PIL, the HC issued certain interim directions without making any of the treating doctors a party to the proceedings.

The HC had directed that the doctors of S.R.N. Medical College would be liable to pay compensation of Rs 25,00,000 within six weeks. Apart from directing the doctors to pay the compensation, the HC had issued several other directions for prevention and treatment of Malaria, Dengue, Kala-azar and any Vector Borne Diseases.

However, being aggrieved, the State approached the Supreme Court bench. Although the State did not challenge any of the directions issued in Paragraph 23, for public benefit, the award of compensation was challenged by it.

Taking note of the fact that none of the treating doctors were made a party in the proceedings, the top court bench noted, "During the course of its judgment, the High Court arrived at certain conclusions which were in the nature of findings on the issue of negligence on part of the concerned hospital and the treating doctors. Such findings and conclusions are definitely prejudicial to the interest of the treating doctors and the hospital."

Leaving aside the question whether in a PIL, the matter could be adjudicated whether any negligence had occurred in an individual case, the bench opined, "the basic feature of the matter as it emerges is quite clear that none of the persons who could get adversely affected by a decision was made a party to the proceedings."

Therefore, setting aside the HC's order of compensation, the bench directed, "We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting-aside the findings and the conclusions in the judgment under appeal about negligence on part of the hospital and the treating doctors and the operative directions issued in paragraph 20 as quoted hereinabove. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside such conclusions and directions."

However, the bench didn't interfere with the directions issued by the HC in Paragraph 23.

"It is however made clear that the directions issued in paragraph 23 are left untouched and shall be operative."

The top court bench, however, allowed the father of the deceased to avail the remedy of law available to him and noted, "If the respondent has a grievance that his son died as a result of professional negligence on part of the concerned hospital and treating doctors, he has every remedy in law either on the criminal side, or before a consumer forum or before any other competent authority. Public Interest Litigation in a manner it was initiated and dealt with by the High Court was certainly not a proper remedy."

"Therefore, leaving all questions open, we give liberty to the respondent to initiate such proceedings as are open to him in law. As and when, such proceedings are initiated, the time taken in prosecuting the instant public interest litigation shall be reckoned for the purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and in such eventuality, the proceedings so initiated shall be taken to logical conclusion purely on their own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court. The respondent shall however be entitled to rely on the material which was placed before the High Court," further read the order.

To read the top court order, click on the link below.