The Calcutta High Court has awarded ₹5 lakh in compensation to an electrician left partially blind after a cataract surgery at a State-run facility in Metiabruz [Gobinda Chandra Debnath vs The State of West Bengal & Ors].

The Court held the West Bengal government strictly liable for medical negligence and gross infrastructural lapses noticed on the hospital's part.

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee held that the right to eyesight flows directly from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Constitutional courts can award monetary relief under public law without relegating impoverished victims to lengthy civil suits, the Court added.

"Undoubtedly, right to eye sight flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India... The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available... This is an act of constitutional tort. State is duty bound to provide all infrastructural facilities to run the State hospitals," the Court held.

The Court passed the ruling on a plea by Gobinda Chandra Debnath, an electrician and the sole breadwinner of his family, who had undergone cataract surgery on June 28, 2024, at the Gardenreach State General Hospital/Metiabruz Super-Speciality Hospital (Nadial Hospital) in South 24 Parganas.

Following the surgery, Debnath developed severe post-operative complications and ocular infections. A total of 44 patients underwent treatment at the facility during that period, out of which 22 suffered visual impairment.

The Director of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology (RIO), Kolkata, opined that the incident was caused by microbial contamination in operative devices, solutions, or faulty sterilization methods.

Debnath moved the High Court seeking compensation. However, by an order dated July 24, 2025, a single judge Bench of the High Court initially declined to grant him relief directly and told him to approach an appropriate civil forum.

Aggrieved by this, Debnath preferred an appeal before the Division Bench.

Advocate Jhuma Sen, appearing for Debnath, argued that victim compensation forms an integral part of the constitutional scheme and that the State cannot plead sovereign immunity for gross medical negligence in public healthcare facilities.

The State countered that the incident had occurred under the previous administrative setup and that remedial measures recommended by an enquiry committee were now being strictly adhered to.

Scrutinizing the records, the Division Bench took strong exception to the enquiry committee's assertion that "no medical negligence had taken place."

The Court observed that the committee had itself recommended sweeping overhauls, noting that the operation theatre (OT) had improper entryways, misplaced washbasins, lack of dedicated OT attendants, and no trained nursing staff.

"It is strange that the same medical board which advised autoclaving, sterilization, foot wash, foot cover, orientation programme for the staff and placement of dedicated staff and nurses at the OT, held that there was no negligence... The nature of the recommendations clearly indicate that the hospital was neither ready nor equipped to treat any surgical case for the eye," the Bench observed.

It termed theboard's clean chit "casual" and "bereft of any reason."

Revisiting landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence including in DK Basu v. State of WB, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of WB, the Court underscored that running a hospital is a welfare function, not a sovereign one.

"The report of the medical board clearly indicates infrastructural gaps and we are of the opinion that the risks which the hospital had taken to perform the surgeries on the poor citizens demonstrates rash and negligent actions. The State hospitals are to be run with the basic infrastructural facilities and in this case, the lack of supervision as also the callousness with which the surgery was performed without ensuring proper infrastructure, had put the lives of the citizens at stake," the Court further noted.

Taking note of Debnath's loss of livelihood, the Court directed the State to pay him ₹5,00,000 within eight weeks.

The Court further stipulated that in the event of any default in payment, the amount would carry simple interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the order until the actual payment.

Advocates Jhuma Sen, Yuvraj Chatterjee, and Samsul Laskar appeared for Debnath.

Government Pleader DN Roy, Additional Government Pleader Susmita Saha Dutta, and Advocates Madhu Jana and Tanushree Ghosh appeared for the State.

[Read Judgement]