State Vicariously Liable For Negligent Acts Of Government Hospital Employees Resulting In Loss Of Eyesight: Calcutta High Court

Background Facts

The appellant was an electrician by profession. He was the sole earning member of his family. He underwent cataract surgery at a government hospital. The surgery led to serious complications, infections, and a series of treatments. Several other patients who underwent surgery at the same hospital suffered similar fates.

The Director of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (RIO), Kolkata, opined that the incident occurred due to contamination of micro-organisms in operative devices or fluids, and due to faulty sterilization of instruments.

A medical board-cum-enquiry committee submitted a report which recommended various infrastructural changes in the OT area. The changes included improvements to entrance, wash basin placement, closure of a utility room, and training for nursing staff, along with daily sterilization and autoclaving of OT items, foot wash, and foot cover for patients.

However, the medical board observed that no medical negligence had taken place. The Electrician filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. It was held by the Single Judge that the Director had admitted the negligence. However, the Electrician was directed to approach the appropriate forum for compensation.

Aggrieved by the same, the Electrician filed the appeal before the High Court of Calcutta.

It was argued by the Electrician that victim compensation is part of the constitutional framework and the State does not enjoy any immunity. It was submitted that the constitutional court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct compensation for such gross negligence by instrumentalities of the State. Reliance was also placed on the enquiry report of the medical board and the written opinion of the Director, RIO, MCH Campus, Kolkata.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the unfortunate incident took place some time ago. It was further submitted that the recommendations of the medical board with regard to remedial measures were being strictly followed by the present regime.

Findings and observations of the court

It was observed by the court that the liability of the State cannot be avoided. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and the State Government had implemented several programmes for promotion of eye health and prevention of visual impairment. The right to eyesight flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It was further noted that the placement of the OT entrance, wash basin etc. had been found to be improper or inadequate for carrying out surgeries of like nature. Further, the OT which was used to conduct the surgeries on the patients, did not have trained and dedicated nursing staff and OT attendants.

It was further observed that nature of the recommendations clearly indicated that the hospital was neither ready nor equipped to treat any surgical case for the eye. The 44 people of the locality had undergone treatment in the said hospital, out of which 22 had suffered visual impairment. Therefore, the casual observation of the medical board that there was no medical negligence was rejected by the Bench.

It was held by the Division Bench that there was sheer negligence on the part of the hospital authorities and also the state government, in allowing surgery without proper checks and measures.

It was noted by the Bench that the Electrician had suffered loss of vision which had rendered him partially blind. It was held by the Division Bench that the principle of strict liability for violation of the fundamental right of the Electrician was applicable. Right to life and livelihood includes right to live with dignity and enjoy good health. Loss of eye sight has affected the quality of the life of the Electrician. The State has a vicarious liability for the actions of the hospital.

It was observed that the report of the medical board clearly indicated infrastructural gaps. It was noted by the Bench that the risks which the hospital had taken to perform the surgeries on the poor citizens demonstrated rash and negligent actions.

The decision in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. was relied upon wherein it was held that claim for compensation for the wrong committed was on account of the principle of strict liability, therefore, the principle of sovereign immunity was not available to State in such cases.

Further in the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, it was held that sovereign immunity is confined to ordinary tort claims. It cannot be invoked to defeat a constitutional claim for violation of fundamental rights. Courts can award compensation as a public-law remedy where State action results in such violation, when compensation is the only practical relief.

Further in case of Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, it was held by the Supreme Court that running a hospital is not in exercise of the State's sovereign power therefore, the State is vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by its servants.

It was held by the Division Bench that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not available to the State.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Further, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded to the Electrician. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Electrician was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Gobinda Chandra Debnath Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : F.M.A. 1457 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Jhuma Sen, Yuvraj Chatterjee, Samsul Laskar

Counsel for the Respondent : D. N. Roy, Ld. GP; Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. AGP; Madhu Jana; Tanushree Ghosh