Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 18th December 2021

1. Hospital Cannot Claim To Be Indemnified By Insurer Under Insurance Policies Obtained By Doctors To Cover Claims Of Professional Negligence: Supreme Court

• In a case of medical negligence, the Supreme Court has observed that a joint and several liability could not have been fastened on the insurer and the hospital could not claim to be indemnified by the insurer under insurance policies which were not obtained by the hospital but by the doctors to cover claims of professional negligence against themselves.

• The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was hearing appeals against a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of February, 2014. The appellant was a charitable hospital registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1961. Between June 21 and 23, 2000, the appellant conducted an eye camp where cataract surgeries were performed on 112 patients. The patients complained of negligence in the performance of the surgeries by the use of non-sterilized appliances, contaminated medicines and lenses of an inferior quality resulting in eye infections and loss of vision. The state government appointed a Committee to enquire into the causes which led, inter alia, to several patients having lost their eye-sight.

• The bench observed, "From the record, it emerges that the insurance policies were obtained by the doctors. These were professional indemnity insurance policies which would cover a claim for professional negligence which was made against the doctors. Admittedly, the finding of negligence, as it appears from the order of the State Commission, is specifically against the hospital. The finding is that the hospital and its staff were negligent in the conduct of the cataract surgeries. The specific finding is that the equipment which was used were not properly sterilized, the staff was not properly trained and the medicines which were administered were not of the requisite quality and were contaminated.

• In this backdrop, the issue is whether the hospital could have claimed to be indemnified by the insurer. The hospital was not the beneficiary of the insurance policies which were obtained by the doctors to cover the discharge of their own professional obligations. There was a manifest error on the part of the District Forum as well as the State Commission. The NCDRC had a valid basis to exercise its revisional jurisdiction."

• The bench proceeded to hold, "In this backdrop, and for the above reasons, no fault can be found with the ultimate findings of the NCDRC. 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."

• "In the circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the appeals. However, all that needs to be clarified is that the dismissal of the appeals shall not come in the way of the appellant working out its equities or rights in law by adopting suitable proceedings against any other persons, who according to them may also be negligent in the discharge of their duties, on which this Court makes no observation or finding of fact whatsoever.

• Since the amount was deposited in pursuance of the interim order and has been permitted to be withdrawn by the patients, it also needs to be clarified that this aspect shall stand confirmed while disposing of the appeals. If any amount has not been disbursed to the original claimants, this shall be done expeditiously," ruled the bench.

Source: Bar & Bench

1. Supreme Court Directs Bombay HC To Dispose Of Domestic Violence Case Against Mumbai Commissioner Hemant Nagrale Within 6 Months

• The Supreme Court recently directed the Bombay High Court to consider disposing of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against Hemant Namdeorao Nagrale, Commissioner of Mumbai within 6 months.

• The bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat in the present matter was considering a special leave petition assailing Bombay High Court's order of refusing to quash the proceedings initiated by his wife under the D.V. Act.

• While disposing of the SLP pertaining to DV proceedings, the bench in Hemant Namdeorao Nagrale v. Pratima @ Rani Hemant Nagrale & Anr observed, "Since the divorce granted by the Family Court on the ground of cruelty is pending consideration in First Appeal No.71 of 2011 before the High Court, and as the operative directions issued by the Family Court had granted permanent maintenance to the respondent-wife, all the issues pertaining to and raised in the application preferred under the D.V. Act, 2005 shall be gone into by the High Court in the pending First Appeal No.71 of 2011.

• Such a course is permissible by express terms of Section 26 of the D.V. Act. For the effective consideration of the entire controversy, the application preferred under the D.V. Act shall stand transferred to the High Court for appropriate determination and disposal."

• Nagrale on January 17, 2014 filed an application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the D.V. Act and also filed a Criminal Application seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai u/s 498A, 323, 328, 341, 307, 504, 506(2) r/w Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• "Insofar as the challenge to the rejection of application under Section 482 of the Code seeking quashing of criminal proceedings filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai is concerned, Special Leave to Appeal is granted. Interim order granted in SLP shall continue to operate. Hearing of the appeal is expedited," the Court noted in its order.

Source: Bar & Bench

Supreme Court Stays Probe Of Justice Lokur Commission Constituted By WB Govt In Pegasus Case

• The Supreme Court passed an interim order to stay the enquiry proceedings by the Judicial Enquiry Commission led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur, which has been constituted by the State of West Bengal, to inquire into the allegations of snooping using the Pegasus spyware.

• A bench led by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramanaexpressed its unhappiness over the Commission conducting the proceedings when the Supreme Court has constituted an independent committee to probe the matter.

• When the matter was taken, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner NGO "Global Village Foundation Charitable Trust", submitted that they are challenging the proceedings of the West Bengal commission.

• CJI Ramana then asked Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the State of West Bengal, as to what happened to the oral undertaking given by him that the State Government won't proceed with the matter.

• "We understand the state's predicament. Issue notice to all parties. We stay proceedings", the CJI said.

• The bench, also comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli, issued notice to the Commission and stayed its proceedings. The bench granted petitioner permission to implead the Secretary of the Commission in the case.

• The Pegasus controversy erupted on July 18 after The Wire and several other international publications published reports about the mobile numbers which were potential targets of the spyware service given by NSO company to various governments, including India. 40 Indian journalists, political leaders like Rahul Gandhi, election strategist Prashant Kishore, former ECI member Ashok Lavassa etc are reported to be in the list of targets, as per The Wire.

Source: Bar & Bench