Chaini Parwani
Published On: December 24, 2021 at 19:56 IST
Supreme Court observed that if a hospital is not the beneficiary of the Insurance policies, which have been obtained by doctors to cover the discharge of their own professional negligence, a joint and several liabilities could not be fastened on the insurer to cover the claims made to a hospital.
A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna adjudicated the Court while upholding the Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The Supreme Court noted “While it is true that the NCDRC has interfered in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, it was justified in doing so since a joint and several liability could not have been fastened on the insurer under insurance policies which were not obtained by the hospital. The submission of the hospital that it was the beneficiary of those insurance policies does not evidently have any basis.”
The Appellant, a Charitable Hospital registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1961, argued against the Verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 26 February 2014.
Previously, between 21 and 23 June 2000, an eye camp (Cataract Surgeries) was conducted by the Hospital, wherein patients complained of negligence in the performance of the surgeries.
Pertaining to this incident a consumer organization registered 24 complaints against the hospital and the Insurance company.
Furthermore, it came into light that the insurance policies were acquired by the doctors from the insurer to cover claims of professional negligence.
Further in the consumer case proceedings before the District Consumer Court, the doctors were not made parties even though affidavits had been filed by them.