Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that hospital can be held vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the doctor which caused the death of the patient. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of The Managing Director, Kamineni Hospitals v. Peddi Narayana Swami & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of The Managing Director, Kamineni Hospitals v. Peddi Narayana Swami & Anr.(2025) Case?   

• This case involves an appeal by Kamineni Hospitals challenging orders related to medical negligence compensation. 
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had imposed a liability of Rs. 15 lakhs on the hospital and Rs. 5 lakhs on Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar (total Rs. 20 lakhs). 
• The case concerns the death of a 27-year-old son of Respondent No. 1 (Peddi Narayana Swami). 
• The deceased was a B.Tech graduate working in a soap factory at the time of his death. 
• The hospital appealed claiming there was no medical negligence, arguing they followed standard care procedures and had obtained necessary permissions from the patient's attendants. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of medical negligence against both Kamineni Hospitals and Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar. 
• The Court determined there was "ample evidence" and records indicating medical negligence, validating the conclusions reached by both the APSCDRC and NCDRC. 
• The Court rejected the hospital's argument that they had followed standard care procedures and obtained necessary permissions. 
• The Court upheld the vicarious liability of the hospital for the negligence of its doctors and staff. 
• Regarding compensation quantum, the Court considered the deceased's age (27), education (B.Tech), employment (soap factory), and future earning potential. 
• The Court confirmed the NCDRC's assessment of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid by Dr. Vidyasagar was appropriate. 
• The Court modified the hospital's liability from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs plus accrued interest. 
• The Court ruled that the modified compensation amount "would serve the interest of justice" and would be sufficient for the hospital's liability. 
• The Court directed that the deposited amount with accrued interest be disbursed to the complainant upon application to the Court Registrar. 
• The appeal was disposed of with these terms, maintaining the finding of negligence but adjusting the compensation amount. 

What is Medical Negligence? 

• Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) medical negligence is contained in Section 106. 
• Any person who causes the death of another person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• If such rash or negligent act causing death is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing a medical procedure, the practitioner shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. 
• For the purposes of this provision, a "registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification recognized under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. 
• The definition of "registered medical practitioner" extends to practitioners whose names have been entered in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. 
• Medical practitioners face a reduced maximum imprisonment term (two years instead of five years) compared to the general provision for causing death by negligence. 

What are the Case Laws on Medical Negligence? 

• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another (2006):  
  • In this case the Supreme Court held defined negligence as Negligence is defined as when a defendant fails to use ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom he/she owes a duty, resulting in the plaintiff suffering damage to his person or property  
  • The Court further stated the difference between medical negligence and criminal negligence.  
• Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (2005):   
  • The court in this case held that negligence occurs when the expected standards are not followed by the medical practitioner, however if due care has been taken then negligence cannot be constituted.  
• Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research (2010):   
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that being negligent means doing or not doing something that a prudent man would do or not do.