This article is written by Kashish Varshney, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
ABSTRACT
“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhuman.” — Martin Luther King Jr. Medical compensation is more than a legal process; it is a moral accounting. This paper explores how Indian law addresses medical negligence not merely through legislation, but through a prism of empathy, responsibility, and constitutional promise. It delves into the paradigms that govern compensation, from consumer protection to civil liability and criminal negligence, while highlighting the judiciary’s changing role in defining harm and restoring dignity. The study brings out how the right to health, based on Article 21 of the Constitution, moves beyond procedural justice to uphold the sanctity of life. Leveraging trends of negligence and structural lacunae in health care delivery, the paper maintains that compensation has to be conceptualized as a healing, one that harmonizes law and lived experience. In a nation plagued by health care disparities, legal remedy becomes an important tool not merely for justice, but for healing trust in the institutions intended to secure us.
KEYWORDS
Medical negligence, judicial compensation, patient rights, Indian judiciary, tort law, healthcare accountability, consumer protection, medical ethics.
INTRODUCTION
Imagine going to a hospital or a physician and you incur losses, physical or financial or even psychological, as a result of the negligence on the part of the medical services provider. Medical negligence happens when a practitioner does not exercise the level of care that a reasonably competent professional would have done in similar situations. It is not simply a failure, but it is a breach of ethics, trust, and legal responsibility. The victims of such negligence have a right to pursue compensation, not as a matter of money but as justice and recognition. The judiciary, in such a case, turns into something more than a decision-maker; it turns into a lifeline. Indian courts have been instrumental in defining medical negligence, giving compensation, and establishing precedents that give patient rights its shape. This paper discusses the role at length, analyzing how courts have dealt with medical compensation claims, the difficulties encountered, and the wider implications for opportunities in healthcare.
UNDERSTANDING MEDICAL COMPENSATION: LEGAL AND ETHICAL FRAMEWORK
Medical compensation refers to the financial redress awarded to victims of medical negligence. In India, such claims are fall under tort law, criminal law, consumer protection statutes, or constitutional remedies. However, unlike countries such as the UK or the US, India lacks a codified framework specifically governing medical compensation, leaving much of the burden on judicial interpretation.
INDIAN LAWS GOVERNING MEDICAL COMPENSATION
In India, the legal framework for medical compensation is not contained within a single statute but is instead shaped by a civil, criminal, and consumer protection laws, along with professional ethical codes.
Negligence under Consumer Protection Act
At the heart of medical compensation lies the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which treats patients as consumers when they receive medical service for a fee. This act empowers individuals to file complaints before Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions at the district, state, or national level, depending on the value of the claim. It allows for compensation, damages, and expeditious hearings, making it one of the most accessible legal avenues for victims of medical negligence.
In Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha[1], the Supreme Court ruled that medical services are included within the meaning of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This landmark decision gave patients the legal right to approach consumer forums with complaints against medical negligence, significantly strengthening their access to justice.
Since then, consumer forums across India have seen a surge in medical negligence cases. A 2023 analysis revealed that 12% of all complaints handled by consumer forums pertain to medical negligence.[2]
Another notable judgment was in Dr. Smt. Rekha v. Dr. S.R. Sharma[3] case, a woman suffered permanently disability due to an improperly administered spinal injection. The consumer forum awarded Rs. 25 lakhs in compensation, citing breach of duty and lack of informed consent.
Criminal Negligence
On the criminal side, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 under the Section 106 penalizes causing death by negligence. This section states that, “whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.”[4] Section 125 of BNS deals with causing hurt or grievous hurt through negligent acts.
In the case of Kurban Hussein Mohammedali v. State of Maharashtra[5], the Court clarified that for someone to be held liable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the death must be directly caused by the accused’s rash or negligent act. If another person’s actions played a role in the outcome, the accused cannot be held solely responsible under this provision.
Civil Negligence
Civil remedies are also available under tort law, where compensation is sought for breach of duty resulting in harm. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 plays a role here, as the doctor-patient relationship is often viewed as a contractual one. A breach of this duty such as failure to diagnose, improper treatment, or lack of informed consent can lead to claim for damages.
Ethical oversight is provided by the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and more recently, the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019, which replaced the Medical Council of India. These regulations mandate ethical medical practice, including duties like maintaining confidentiality, obtaining informed consent, and exercising due care. Breaches can result in disciplinary action, including suspension or cancellation of a practitioner’s license.
Despite this legal architecture, victims often face hurdles in proving negligence, accessing expert testimony, and navigating procedural delays. The judiciary has stepped in to fill these gaps, interpreting these laws in ways that center patient dignity and justice. Yet, the absence of a dedicated statute on medical compensation continues to create inconsistencies in how cases are adjudicated and how damages are calculated.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND LANDMARK CASES
In India, the judiciary has played a vital role in shaping the contours of medical compensation, especially in the absence of a dedicated statute.
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha & Ors.[6]
In this case, what happened is a lady of 35 years old had come to India; she had some skin problems. She went to several doctors, and her problem was not cured. Ultimately, she died due to the treatment, which was wrongly given by the doctors. She had come up to the Supreme Court, and the liability was fixed; however, the compensation had not been fixed, so they went back to the National Commission for quantum. Initially the claim was 77 crores, which was subsequently amended to that of 97, which was also challenged. It was a commission that had given 1.5 crores as a joint and several liability by the hospital as well as the doctors. However, the claimant as well as the hospital came to the Supreme Court, which is the reported judgment of 2014. In this case, the Supreme Court, after years of litigation, awarded Rs. 6.08 crore in compensation, the highest ever in a medical negligence case in India. But more than the amount, it was the court’s recognition of systematic failure and the emotional trauma of the victim’s family that made this case a landmark.
Neeraj Sud And Anr. V. Jaswinder Singh & Anr.[7]
The case relates to the lodging of the consumer complaint by the father against the doctor and PGI, Chandigarh alleging that his minor son’s eye vision deteriorated post-surgery. The complaint’s claim was based on the medical records kept by the hospital which recorded that at the pre-surgery stage, his son’s eye vision was 6/9 which fell to 6/18 in both eyes at the post-surgery state making his son suffer from double vision. In this case, the Court emphasized that a medical professional can only be held liable for negligence if they lack the necessary qualifications or fail to apply the reasonable level of skill expected in treatment. Drawing on the Bolam Test, originally established in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and later adopted by the Indian Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005)—the Court found that the doctor in question was both qualified and competent to perform the surgery and administer treatment. Since the doctor adhered to accepted medical practices, no liability for negligence could be imposed. The Court made it clear that medical negligence cannot be inferred from a simple mistake, an unexpected outcome, or a slight lapse in care. As long as the doctor’s actions are consistent with the practices accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals, such errors do not amount to legal negligence.
THE BOLAM TEST AND ITS ROLE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
This test arose from English tort law, which is used to assess medical negligence. The Bolam test holds that the law imposes a duty of care between a doctor and his patient, but the standard of that care is a matter of medical judgment. Now let’s discuss when this test originated.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee[8]
Landmark English tort law in medical negligence and a celebrated case in the history of the medical fraternity. In this case, Mr. Bolam had a recurrent depression, and hence, he went to a hospital that is Frien Hospital Management, so here he used to take treatment. One day he had severe depression; the doctor said that you need to take electroconvulsive therapy, so Bolam agreed to take the therapy. And during 1957, unmodified ECT was given (no muscle relaxant, no anesthesia, & he was not even restrained during the procedure). In the third or fourth seizure, he sustained fractures of the acetabula (hip). By the time he recovered from depression, he became angry with the hospital that I came to for treatment of depression; now my acetabulum had been fractured. So, he approached the English Court, blaming the doctors in the hospital for being negligent for not restraining him, not giving him muscle relaxants, not giving him anesthesia, and not informing him about the risk. McNair, the judge, explained that a doctor shouldn’t be considered negligent if they follow a treatment approach that’s accepted as appropriate by a respected group of medical professionals in that field. In other words, as long as the doctor’s actions align with what a responsible body of experts would consider reasonable, they cannot be held legally at fault—even if others might have chosen a different method.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL BACKBONE OF MEDICAL COMPENSATION
Imagine a woman in rural Madhya Pradesh who loses her child due to a misdiagnosed infection. She is devastated, but when she seeks justice, she’s told there’s no specific law that guarantees compensation for medical negligence. So where does she turn? The answer lies not in just one law; it is rooted in the living values of the constitution.
Article 21—which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted to include the right to health and medical assistance as essential to living with dignity. In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India[9], it was held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors, whether government or private, to extend medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without waiting for legal formalities to be complied with by the police under CrP.C. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution places a duty on the State to safeguard human life. This responsibility extends to public health authorities, who are entrusted with preserving the well-being of the community. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation by declaring that the right to health and medical care is an integral part of the fundamental right to life, affirming that dignity and well-being cannot be separated from access to healthcare. It emphasized that access to healthcare is not just about survival, it’s essential for ensuring that a worker’s life is lived with dignity, meaning, and purpose.
But the Constitution doesn’t stop there. The Directive Principles of State Policy, especially Articles 38, 39(e), 41, 42, and 47, paint a vision of a welfare state where public health is a priority. Article 47, for instance, urges the State to improve nutrition and public health, reminding lawmakers that health is not a luxury; it is a duty.
In Paschim Bang Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of W.B.,[10] the Supreme Court directed the State to pay Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner as compensation, who had fallen from a running train and sustained serious injuries and got himself admitted to a private hospital and incurred expenses of Rs. 17,000 because in government hospitals in Calcutta, the beds were not vacant and he was denied emergency care at multiple hospitals. The Court ruled that the government has a constitutional obligation to ensure access to medical facilities, especially in emergencies.
These interpretations have transformed the Constitution into a shield for patients. They’ve allowed victims of medical negligence to seek compensation not just as consumers, but as citizens whose fundamental rights have been violated. The judiciary has filled the legislative vacuum with empathy and reason, crafting a framework where justice is not just possible, it’s constitutional.
EMPIRICAL REPORTS AND DATA ON MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN INDIA
Every year, millions of patients suffer harm due to errors that could have been prevented. The numbers are staggering, and they reveal a healthcare system struggling to balance care with accountability.
- The Scale of the Problem
Research published by the National Library of Medicine in 2022 revealed that India faces an alarming annual incidence of up to 5.2 million medical malpractice cases across hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare settings. “This reflects a sharp 110% increase over time, with medical litigation cases seeing a staggering 400% surge,” says Deepanker Mahajan, CEO and Founder of CoverYou. Shockingly, only 46% of healthcare providers comply with ethical guidelines, and 80% of medical error deaths are attributed to surgical mistakes.
- Specialty-Wise Breakdown
A five-year retrospective review of cases decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) found that out of 253 cases analyzed, negligence was confirmed in 53%. The highest incidence was in surgery (27%), followed by obstetrics and gynecology (21%). Compensation payouts reached up to Rs. 1.38 crore in pediatrics and Rs. 1.1 crore in OBG, indicating the severe impact of these errors.
- State-Wise Disparities
Recent research reveals stark regional disparities in medical malpractice across India. Punjab reports the highest rate at 24%, followed by West Bengal (17%), Maharashtra (16%), and Tamil Nadu (11%). These figures highlight not just systemic gaps in healthcare delivery, but also the urgent need for stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms in states with high incidence rates.
CONCLUSION
Medical negligence doesn’t just harm the body; it shakes a person’s trust in the very system meant to heal. In India, the judiciary has become a vital protector for patients, helping them seek justice and fair compensation when medical care goes wrong. Through important cases and legal tests, courts have set clear standards for what counts as negligence and how victims should be supported. The Constitution, especially Article 21, reminds us that the right to life includes the right to proper healthcare. Real-world data shows how widespread and uneven medical negligence is across states and specialties, making the judiciary’s role even more important. As healthcare becomes more complex, the courts must continue to stand by patients, ensuring that dignity, safety, and accountability are never compromised.
REFERENCES
- Medical negligence in cases decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: A five-year retrospective review, https://ijme.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Medical-negligence_273_Final.pdf
- Tapas Kumar Koley, Medical Negligence and the Law in India: Duties, Responsibilities, Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2010).
- Norman Chevers, A Manual of Medical Jurisprudence for India, Including the Outline of a History of Crime Against the Person in India (Gyan Publ’g House 2023).
[1] Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha AIR 1995 SCC 550
[2] Lawinsider, https://lawinsider.in/columns/an-analysis-of-medical-negligence-under-the-consumer-protection-act, last visited Aug 19, 2025
[3] Dr. Smt. Rekha v. Dr. S.R. Sharma
[4] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sec 106.
[5] Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965, SC 1616
[6] Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha & Ors AIR 2013 SC 528
[7] Neeraj Sud And Anr. V. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr AIR 2024
[8] Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582
[9] Pt. Parmananda Katara v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1989 SC 2039
[10] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal & Anr AIR 1996 SC 2426.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments