In a case of Medical Negligence the Supreme Court has directed a Doctor to pay 2.5 lakh to a patient who lost vision of one eye.

The Supreme Court has allowed a Special Leave Petition and granted relief to a 84 year old man by directing the Doctor who operated on his left eye to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for medical negligence.
 
The Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Commission which ordered for compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs with 12% interest. The matter went up in appeal before the State Commission and then to the National Commission. The matter finally reached the Supreme Court where the Court reversed the Order passed by the National Commission and allowed an interest @ 12 % from the date of filing of the Complaint. 
 
The Supreme Court held thus: 
 
It is relevant to note here that the Ethics Committee of Medical Council of India(hereinafter being referred to as ‘MCI’) conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 20th December, 2012 holding Dr. R.P. Singh to be in violation of Professional Misconduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulation, 2002.
 
The competent authority, i.e., the MCI vide order dated 20th April, 2015 held the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain and affirmed the recommendation of the Ethics Committee removing his name from the Indian Medical Register for a period of six months. On going through the pleadings of civil appeals preferred by the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh, it becomes clear that the said order issued by MCI was not challenged by the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh and thus, has attained finality.
 
In the background of the aforesaid facts, the issue regarding the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh having committed medical negligence in treating the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain is no longer res integra. Consequently, the order dated 18th May, 2022 whereby the revision preferred by the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain was accepted, the order of SCDRC was reversed and the order of the DCDRC was affirmed, does not warrant any interference in the appeals preferred by Dr. R.P. Singh.

 P.C. JAIN VERSUS DR. R.P. SINGH