Supreme Court Faults HC For Granting Compensation For Medical Negligence In PIL Without Hearing Treating Doctors

The Supreme Court recently set aside Allahabad High Court's order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a compensation of Rs 25,00,000/- on a finding of gross medical negligence on the part of doctors of S.R.N. Medical College which had resulted in the death of a 25 years old man.

A bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha set aside the order dated November 14, 2019 on the ground that it was passed in a PIL and that adverse findings were arrived at without making any of the treating doctors parties to the proceedings. 

"Public Interest Litigation in a manner it was initiated and dealt with by the High Court was certainly not a proper remedy", the Supreme Court observed.

In the present case, the doctors of S.R.N. Medical College allegedly made a wrong diagnosis and they administered 'broad spectrum antibiotic' to the deceased which was not prescribed in dengue fever in the direction of the State Government which resulted in his death. The father of the deceased BP Mishra had addressed a letter to one of the High Court judges on November 4, 2016 based on which the High Court registered a PIL.

In the impugned judgment the High Court directed the State to pay compensation of Rs 25,00,000 within six weeks from the date of order. The payment was to be made through the District Magistrate. 

The High Court had also issued the following directions to the State Government and its functionaries to take following measures in paragraph 23 of the judgment:-

"(i) All the District Magistrates of the State shall be responsible for compliance of these directions and they shall ensure that preventive measures mentioned in the "The Uttar Pradesh Prevention and Control of Malaria, Dengue, Kala-azar and any Vector Borne Disease Regulations, 2016" and work plan prepared by the State Government for control / prevention and rescue of dengue and other vector borne diseases i.e. 'Dengue and Chikangunia Prevention Plans -2016-17' be complied with strictly.

(ii) In the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is mentioned that in several districts of State, 37 SSH's Lab (Sentinal Surveillance Hospital) which have been established for test and investigation of dengue and chikangunia patients, should function efficiently under the supervision of Chief Medical Officer and overall supervision of District Magistrate.

(iii) For the supply of blood and platelets of dengue patients, 39 blood separation units, which have been established in the State of UP, should also function as per the direction, strictly in terms of directions issued by State Government and the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary.

(iv) In Allahabad, SSH's Lab (Sentinal Surveillance Hospital), which has been established in Motilal Nehru Medical College and 03 blood separation units, should be made functional efficiently. Any negligence in its function shall be viewed seriously and necessary action shall be taken for negligence. The Chief Medical Officer, who has been appointed by the State Government as Nodal Officer, is charged to ensure the compliance of the directions issued by this Court."

Aggrieved with the award of compensation, the State had approached the Top Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis

To adjudicate on the issue, the bench noted that none of the treated doctors was a party to the proceedings and opined that the High Court had 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," the bench remarked.

While allowing the appeal, the bench said,

"11. Leaving aside the question whether in a public interest litigation, the matter could be seen whether any negligence had occurred in an individual case, 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.

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

The general directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 23 of the order were not interfered with by the Supreme Court.

The bench also remarked that the manner in which the PIL was initiated and dealt with by the High Court was not a proper remedy and observed that the respondent had every remedy in law either on the criminal side, or before a consumer forum or before any other competent authority.

The Court said that the father of the deceased will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Criminal Court or the Consumer Forum and held that the period during which the PIL was pending will be reckoned for the exclusion of limitation period as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v BP Mishra| Civil Appeal No.1743 Of 2022

Coram: Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha

Counsel for Appellants: Senior Advocate and AAG Garima Prashad and AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate(s) Preetika Dwivedi and Rahul Raj Mishra

Click Here To Read/Download Order