From clinical accountability to ‘constitutional tort’: The shift in medical accountability

In a landmark decision, the Calcutta High Court reinforced hospitals’ constitutional obligation to provide safe, sterile medical care.

In ‘Gobinda Chandra Debnath vs. State of West Bengal’, the court awarded Rs five lakhs in compensation to an electrician, the sole breadwinner of his family, who suffered partial blindness after a routine cataract surgery.

Of 44 patients treated at the State General Hospital, 22 suffered severe visual impairment due to post-operative infections.

Reports from the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (RIO) confirmed that the complications arose from microbial contamination of operative devices or solutions, or from faulty sterilisation.

Interestingly, a state-appointed medical board claimed “no medical negligence.” The High Court rejected this “casual observation,” noting that the board itself had recommended sweeping improvements to the operation theatre.

The court observed that performing surgeries without adequate infrastructure and trained staff constitutes rashness and is a ‘Constitutional Tort’.

This judgment has important implications for healthcare providers.

First, the court has applied the principle of ‘Constitutional Tort’ in cases involving government hospitals. Government hospitals cannot claim sovereign immunity.

Second, appropriate infrastructure and staff are non-negotiable.

Third, courts will scrutinise medical boards and experts called upon to give expert opinions and will not accept their opinions blindly.

Hospitals must ensure appropriate infrastructure, doctors and staff before accepting a patient, especially for interventions. The courts’ views are becoming stricter with every passing day, and even public hospitals are not spared.

Source:

Order passed by the Calcutta High Court on 2nd September.2026 in Gobinda Chandra Debnath Vs.The State of West Bengal & Ors.