Hridaylal Sahu & 2 Ors. vs Dr. Roshan Upadhyay & Anr. on 11 June, 2024
12. Learned Counsel for OP-2 Insurer argued that the judgment in M/s Aster Eye Hospital & Anr vs. Master Ankit, in RP No. 44 of 2021, decided on 06.06.2023, by this Commission is applicable. It highlighted that the involvement of an insurer as a "necessary" or "proper" party in medical negligence cases under the Act is unnecessary. It emphasizes that the determination of medical negligence on behalf of a doctor or hospital relies on evaluating the standard of care provided, adhering to established protocols for diagnosis, even if alternative lines of treatment are available. Importantly, the discharge of these functions does not involve the insurer, regardless of whether the doctor or hospital holds a professional indemnity policy. The learned Counsel further argued that in the present case, the deceased did not pay any premiums to OP-2 and did not obtain insurance coverage. Consequently, there is no privity of contract between the deceased and Respondent Insurance Company. Additionally, the fulfilment of obligations does not implicate OP-2, irrespective of whether the doctor or hospital possesses a Professional Indemnity policy. This policy is subject to specific terms and conditions, with the liability of OP-2 is limited to the indemnity specified in the Schedule for any one Act. Therefore, he urged for dismissal of this Appeal against OP-2.