Calcutta High Court Orders State To Pay ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Patient Who Suffered Loss Of Vision After Cataract Surgery At Govt Hospital
The Calcutta High Court has awarded compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a patient who suffered loss of vision following cataract surgery at a government hospital, holding that the State cannot escape liability for medical negligence committed by its hospitals.
A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee observed that the appellant, an electrician and the sole earning member of his family, had suffered serious monetary loss and loss of future prospects due to the complications following surgery.
The Court held that the right to eyesight flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the State has a duty to provide adequate infrastructure and facilities in its hospitals.
The appeal arose from an order passed by a Single Judge in July 2025, which had directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for claiming compensation.
The appellant challenged the order, arguing that compensation could be awarded under the constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights and that the State could not claim immunity for medical negligence at government hospitals.
The Bench examined the medical records and reports concerning the cataract surgeries conducted at Gardenreach State General Hospital and Metiabruz Super-Speciality Hospital, also known as Nadial Hospital, in South 24-Parganas.
The surgeries were conducted on June 28, 2024. The Court noted that 44 patients had undergone treatment at the hospital, out of whom 22 suffered visual impairment.
The Director of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Kolkata, had opined that the unfortunate incident may have occurred due to contamination by microorganisms in the operative devices or solutions, or due to faulty sterilisation of instruments.
The Court also considered the report of the medical board-cum-enquiry committee. Although the board had observed that no medical negligence had taken place, it had recommended several remedial measures, including changes to the operation theatre, training of nursing staff and OT attendants, daily sterilisation and autoclaving of instruments, and the provision of dedicated staff.
The Bench observed that these recommendations themselves indicated that the hospital was neither ready nor adequately equipped to conduct eye surgeries.
“We are surprised to find that the board was of the view that no medical negligence had taken place,” the Court observed, noting that the finding was contrary to the Director's report and the medical history and treatment records of the patients.
The Court further observed that the hospital had been closed since July 2024 and that the medical board had recommended changes to the OT entrance, wash basin and utility room. It also noted the absence of trained and dedicated nursing staff and OT attendants.
“There was sheer negligence on the part of the hospital authorities and also the state government, in allowing surgery without proper check and measure,” the Bench held.
The Court found that the appellant had suffered loss of vision which had rendered him partially blind and that the injury had affected his ability to sustain himself and his family.
The Bench held that the State's liability could not be avoided and that the case fell within the scope of a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights.
“Right to life and livelihood includes right to live with dignity and enjoy good health. Good quality of life is embedded in right to life. Loss of eye sight has affected the quality of the life of the appellant,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the State was vicariously liable for the actions of the hospital and that the infrastructural gaps and lack of supervision demonstrated rash and negligent conduct.
“This is an act of constitutional tort. State is duty bound to provide all infrastructural facilities to run the State hospitals,” the Bench held.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in D.K. 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 principle laid down in Nilabati Behera, the Bench observed that a claim for compensation in public law for violation of fundamental rights was distinct from a private law claim for damages and that sovereign immunity was not available as a defence.
The Court also relied on Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa to hold that running a hospital was a welfare activity and not an exercise of sovereign power. The State, therefore, could be held vicariously liable for negligence by its doctors or employees.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts have an obligation to protect fundamental rights and that monetary compensation could be awarded as a mode of redressal where appropriate.
“Courts have a duty to do complete justice and on such principle, we are empowered to award monetary compensation as a mode of redressal and a balm to the wound,” the Court held.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside to the extent that it had relegated the appellant to an appropriate forum.
The State was directed to pay Rs 5 lakh to the appellant within eight weeks by account payee cheque, demand draft or RTGS. The Court directed that if the amount was not paid within the stipulated period, the appellant would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until actual payment.
The Court clarified that the compensation was awarded after considering the expenses incurred during treatment, loss of future prospects and the fact that the appellant was the sole bread-earner of the family.
Case: Gobinda Chandra Debnath Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: F.M.A. 1457 of 2025