Apex Court Upholds Vicarious
Liability of Hospitals in Case of
Medical Negligence
Introduc on
The Hon'ble Apex Court by its judgement dated December
16, 2019 recently upheld the order passed by Na onal
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) in the
ma ers of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & Ors. vs. Master
Rishabh Sharma, and Pooja Sharma & Ors. vs. Maharaja
Agrasen Hospital & Ors. holding that a hospital is vicariously
liable for the acts of negligence commi ed by the doctors
engaged or retained by such hospitals for providing medical
care.
Facts
A complaint was filed by Mrs. Pooja Sharma (“Mrs. Sharma”)
the mother of Master Rishabh Sharma (“Infant”) on the
ground of medical negligence commi ed by the
Paediatricians and Ophthalmologists employed by Maharaja
Agrasen Hospital (“Appellant Hospital”) for not conduc ng a
mandatory check-up known as Re nopathy of Prematurity
(“ROP”) of the infant resul ng in the infant going blind
permanently.
On April 02, 2005 Mrs. Sharma had to undergo an emergency
ceasarian, on account of a condi on called Placenta Previa
and gave birth to a premature baby i.e. the Infant. On the
same day, Mrs. Sharma was referred to the intensive care of
the Appellant Hospital. As the Infant's condi on was poor at
the me of his admission to the Appellant Hospital, he was
treated in the neo-natal care ICU of the Paediatrics unit and
was even put on ven latory support. The infant stayed in the
Appellant Hospital for nearly four weeks and was discharged
on April 29, 2005 i.e. 27 days a er his birth. At the me of the
discharge, a Discharge Slip was issued by the Appellant
Hospital and the same did not contain any men on of a ROP
check up having been conducted on the Infant. Mrs. Sharma
took the Infant for subsequent check ups to the Appellant
Hospital but at no point of me was the ROP test conducted
on the Infant or even prescribed by the Doctors who were
doing the follow up examina on of the Infant. Subsequently,
Mrs. Sharma no ced abnormal visual responses in the
Infant. When the Infant was checked in Shroff Charity Eye
Hospital, the Infant was diagnosed with ROP, at which point
the condi on had already progressed to stage 5 i.e., total
re nal detachment. Mrs. Sharma also sought second opinion
from various hospitals and it was diagnosed and concluded
that as per standard procedure the ROP test ought to have
been conducted on the Infant within 3-4 weeks from birth
Disclaimer: This newsle er and all the material it contains, is for informa on purposes only. Nothing contained herein is,
purports to be, or is intended as legal advice. Ver ces Partners makes no representa ons or warran es, express or implied, of any
manner whatsoever in connec on with this newsle er. No recipient of this newsle er should construe receipt of this newsle er,
as an a empt to solicit business in any manner whatsoever.
and had it been detected earlier the same could have been
treated and reversed avoiding permanent blindness. Mrs.
Sharma issued a legal no ce to the Appellant Hospital on
February 24, 2007 to provide an en re in-pa ent medical
record of the Infant in compliance with regula ons of 1.3.2 of
Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, e que es and
Ethics) Regula ons, 2202 (“IMC Regula ons”). Mrs. Sharma
filed a complaint with Delhi Medical Council (“DMC”) seeking
direc on to Appellant Hospital for providing medical records.
The Appellant Hospital provided the medical records of the
infant on June 14, 2007 i.e., a er 2 years from discharge of
infant from Appellate Hospital.
On November 19, 2007 Mrs. Sharma filed a consumer
complaint against the Appellant Hospital and the doctors
who treated the infant under sec on 21(a)(I) of the
Consumer Protec on Act 1986 before the NCDRC seeking
compensa on of Rs. 1,30,25,000/- from the Appellant
Hospital on the grounds of medical negligence and
deficiency of service.
Subsequently, DMC also by its order dated December 14,
2007 warned the Appellant Hospital about the delay on its
part in providing the in-pa ent medical records of Infant to
Mrs. Sharma.
It was contended by the Appellant Hospital that the said ROP
test was conducted and it is not necessary to record the
procedure for conduc on of ROP test by Appellant Hospital.
Further that ROP itself manifests a er 4 weeks from post-
natal age and the check-up done at Appellant Hospital could
not have revealed the defect as Infant was examined on April
26, 2005 i.e., when he was 24 days old.
Mrs. Sharma rebu ed the same on the grounds that 1)
Appellant Hospital was bound to provide medical records of
the Infant within 72 hours of a request being made the by
pa ent and thus professional misconduct was commi ed,
proving that Appellant Hospital had deliberately withheld
the medical records for over two years a er the discharge of
Infant; 2) At the me of discharge on April 29, 2005, Mrs.
Sharma was provided with a Discharge Slip, which did not
disclose any instruc ons advising that the Infant be brought
for ROP examina on or follow-up of ROP, nor was the risk of
ROP explained by the Appellant Hospital; 3) Appellant
Hospital had fabricated records sta ng ROP was conducted
on the Infant.
7
 Apex Court Upholds Vicarious
Liability of Hospitals in Case of
Medical Negligence

NCDRC vide its order dated May 10, 2016 allowed consumer
complaint of Mrs. Sharma and held that the Appellant
Hospital along with the doctors trea ng the Infant were
medically negligent and awarded an amount of Rs. 64 Lakhs
as and by way of compensa on. The said order was
challenged before Hon`ble Apex Court by the Appellant
Hospital by filing an appeal. Mrs. Sharma also filed an appeal
before the Apex Court seeking revision of compensa on
granted by NCDRC.
Held
The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the Bolam Test laid down
in Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Commi ee case
[(1957) 1 WLR 582] and other relevant judgments on medical
negligence and observed that the reasonable standard of
care for a premature baby requires a screening and check-up
for ROP. Further, there was no contemporaneous record to
corroborate that ROP screening had been done by hospital
on April 26, 2005 and the Discharge Slip also did not contain
any advice for mandatory follow up for ROP.
The Hon'ble Apex Court granted Rs. 76 Lakhs as and by way of
revised compensa on to the infant and Mrs. Sharma and
issued direc ves on u liza on of the amount. The Hon'ble
Apex Court affirmed the findings of the Na onal Commission
and observed that the reasonable standard of care for a
premature baby mandates screening and checking up for
ROP, which was not done in this case. The Appellant Hospital,
the Paediatricians, and the Senior Ophthalmologist, all owed
a legal duty of care to the Mrs. Sharma and the Infant and the
failure to inform Mrs. Sharma of the necessity to have the
ROP test conducted in the case of a pre-term baby, and the
high risk involved which could lead to total blindness, was a
breach of duty. Furthermore, the failure to carry out the ROP
test in subsequent stages also, amounted to gross
negligence. Furthermore, the Apex Court also upheld the
well-established principle of tort that a hospital is vicariously
liable for the acts of negligence commi ed by the doctors
engaged or empaneled to provide medical care, on the
ground that it is common that when a pa ent goes to a
hospital, he/she goes there on account of the reputa on of
the hospital, and with the hope that due and proper care will
be taken by the hospital authori es. If the hospital fails to
discharge its du es through its doctors, being employed on
job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital
which has to jus fy the acts of commission or omission on
behalf of its doctors.
Conclusion
The Apex Court by this judgment has introduced a stringent
procedure and laid down guidelines for hospitals serving as a
deterrence for negligent medical professionals and helpful
guidelines for pa ents. ♦♦

OFFICE ADDRESS
Mumbai
Mi al Court, A Wing, 6th Floor, 62/63A, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021
E: connect@ver cespartners.com | P: +91 22 40078000
Gurugram
Two Horizon Centre, WeWork, 5th Floor, DLF Phase 5, Gurugram, Haryana - 122002
E: connect@ver cespartners.com | P: +91 124 5025574
www.ver cespartners.com

Disclaimer: This newsle er and all the material it contains, is for informa on purposes only. Nothing contained herein is,
purports to be, or is intended as legal advice. Ver ces Partners makes no representa ons or warran es, express or implied, of any
manner whatsoever in connec on with this newsle er. No recipient of this newsle er should construe receipt of this newsle er, 8
as an a empt to solicit business in any manner whatsoever.