A Government Hospital Cost Him His Sight. He Was Sent To Another Forum.
Contaminated instruments at a state hospital left several cataract patients with serious complications. A Single Judge told this one to sue elsewhere. The Division Bench has paid him.
The Court held that the liability of the State cannot be avoided, that the right to eyesight flows from the right to life under Article 21, and that failure by government hospitals to provide timely treatment violates Article 21. The order relegating him to another forum was set aside and Rs 5,00,000 compensation directed within eight weeks, with 6 per cent simple interest if it is late.
- A writ court can award compensation for gross negligence by instrumentalities of the State — the constitutional tort.
- The cause was admitted — contamination in the instruments or solutions, or faulty sterilisation.
- Who was in office does not matter. The State argued the incident happened under a previous dispensation.
- The figure reflects the man — treatment costs, loss of future prospects, and his being the sole earner.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE
- Citation
- F.M.A. No. 1457 of 2025
- Case
- F.M.A. No. 1457 of 2025
- Decided
- 2 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; Rs 5 lakh compensation directed within eight weeks
What happened, and what the Single Judge did
The Director of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology recorded that serious complications in the eyesight of several patients who had undergone surgery at a state hospital were due either to contamination and the presence of micro-organisms in the operative devices or in the solutions, or to a faulty method of sterilising the instruments.
Having recorded that, the Single Judge nonetheless directed the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for compensation or damages. Hence the appeal.
Why the State could not be relegated out of it
For the appellant it was argued that victim compensation is part of the constitutional framework, that the State enjoys no immunity, and that for medical negligence during treatment at government hospitals the State is bound by strict liability — a constitutional court under Article 226 being able to direct compensation for gross negligence by instrumentalities of the State.
The State's answer was that the incident took place some time ago, under an earlier dispensation, and that the medical board's remedial recommendations are now being followed strictly.
The Court held the liability of the State cannot be avoided.
Eyesight, Article 21, and the figure
Both the Union and the State have implemented programmes for the promotion of eye health and the prevention of visual impairment. The right to eyesight undoubtedly flows from the right to life guaranteed by Article 21.
The appellant was an electrician by profession, self-employed, and the sole earning member of his family. He availed of treatment at a government hospital, and the cataract surgery led to complications, infections and a series of further treatments. Other victims underwent the same fate.
Failure on the part of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need results in violation of the right to life. The order was set aside to the extent it relegated him to another forum, and Rs 5,00,000 directed within eight weeks — by cheque, demand draft or RTGS — failing which simple interest at 6 per cent runs from the date of the order. The amount reflects the expenses of treatment, loss of future prospects, and his being the sole bread-earner.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a High Court award compensation for hospital negligence?
Yes. The Court held the State enjoys no immunity and directed Rs 5 lakh under Article 226.
Is eyesight protected by Article 21?
The Court held the right to eyesight flows from the right to life.
Seeking compensation for negligence at a state hospital
- Get the enquiry report and the treating institution's own written opinion; an admitted cause is worth more than any expert you retain.
- Frame it as a constitutional tort under Article 226, not as a claim to be sent to a civil court.
- Show the earning role of the victim and the dependants; that is what the figure is built on.
- Ask for a default interest rate, so delay in payment carries a cost.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, F.M.A. No. 1457 of 2025, decided 2 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in