‘Hospitals can’t go scot-free’: Uttarakhand High Court refuses to shield Max Healthcare from Rs 10 lakh penalty

Court: Big hospitals can’t Be left ‘scot-free’

• The hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence committed by the doctor working in the hospital.
• After hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order as well as the Supreme Court precedents cited, the court expressed clear reservations about the hospital’s jurisdictional argument at the interim stage.
• The court declined to stay the operation of the ethics committee’s order and rejected the hospital’s interim relief application.
• At the same time, the court granted the respondents four weeks to file their counter affidavits, indicating that the broader legal questions raised by the hospital will be examined in detail at a later stage.

Ethics committee awards Rs 10 lakh compensation

• The petition challenges a February 4 order passed by the ‘ethics committee’ of the Uttarakhand Medical Council in a complaint by an Indian Army officer Colonel Amit Kumar.
• In that order, the council held the hospital responsible for negligence and directed it to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to the complainant, Kumar.
• Aggrieved by the decision, Max Healthcare moved the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order and to stay its operation pending adjudications.

Hospital questions council’s jurisdiction

• Appearing for the petitioner-hospital, advocate Rohit Puri argued that the Uttarakhand Medical Council had overstepped its statutory authority.
• He relied on Section 10(f) of the Uttarakhand Medical Council Act, 2002, which empowers the Council to receive complaints “against misconduct or negligence by a medical practitioner” and to initiate disciplinary proceedings or award compensation.
• The hospital’s primary contention was that the statute refers specifically to “medical practitioners,” not hospitals as corporate entities.

• Counsel further pointed to Section 2(7) of the Act, which defines a “medical practitioner” as an individual engaged in the practice of modern scientific medicine with recognized qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
• On this basis, it was argued that while individual doctors may fall within the council’s regulatory jurisdiction, a hospital as an institution does not.
• Therefore, fastening direct liability on the hospital for alleged negligence was, according to the petitioner, beyond the scope of the council’s powers.

Supreme Court’s vicarious liability doctrine

• Counsel for the Uttarakhand Medical Council and the complainant countered the argument by invoking settled principles of vicarious liability.
• They placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & Others vs Master Rishab Sharma & Others (Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2016) and Pooja Sharma & Others vs Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9461 of 2019), where the apex court held that hospitals can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by doctors working under them.

• Although those cases arose under the Consumer Protection Act, the respondents argued that the principle remains the same: when patients approach a hospital for treatment, the institution cannot disown responsibility for the acts of its medical staff.
• They contended that modern hospitals operate as integrated service providers and benefit from the professional services of doctors; therefore, accountability must extend to the institution itself.

What lies ahead

• The matter will next be taken up on March 25.
• The case is likely to delve deeper into the interplay between statutory interpretation and evolving judicial principles on institutional liability in healthcare.

• At its core lies a crucial question: can a medical regulatory body directly hold a hospital accountable for negligence under a statute that primarily refers to “medical practitioners”?
• For now, however, the high court’s refusal to grant interim protection sends a clear signal, healthcare institutions cannot expect blanket immunity when allegations of medical negligence arise within their walls.