KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has issued an order in a case involving alleged medical negligence during a surgery performed nearly two decades ago at Paropakar Maternity and Women’s Hospital.
A joint bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel found preliminary grounds indicating negligence beyond normal medical error. The court has directed concerned authorities to conduct a detailed investigation, take action against those found responsible, and ensure compensation to the victim.
Petitioner Parbati Gajurel, originally from Salyan and currently residing in Kathmandu, claimed that a serious error occurred during a surgical procedure when she gave birth to her first child in 2008 at the Thapathali-based hospital.
According to her petition, she experienced persistent pain and complications at the surgical site after delivery. In 2009, she suffered excessive bleeding during a subsequent pregnancy, resulting in a miscarriage and a life-threatening condition. Her health issues continued over the years.
A decade later, in 2018, Gajurel sought treatment from senior gynecologist Jageshwor Gautam at Om Hospital. Medical examinations revealed that her reproductive organs had been improperly stitched during the earlier surgery.
Doctors concluded that the error had significantly affected her reproductive capacity and that any future pregnancy could pose serious risks to her life.
Gajurel argued that the negligence led to the loss of her second child and violated her constitutional right to reproductive health.
The defendants, including Paropakar Hospital, Dr. Jyotsna Sharma, the Nepal Medical Council, the Ministry of Health and Population, and the District Administration Office Kathmandu, have denied the allegations.
The hospital argued that records older than five years are routinely destroyed, making it unable to provide documents. It maintained that no negligence occurred and sought dismissal of the petition.
Dr. Sharma also claimed that treatment was carried out in accordance with medical standards and questioned the validity of allegations raised after a decade. The Medical Council stated it could not proceed with an investigation due to lack of records.
The Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ arguments, stating that the absence of records cannot be used to deny justice.
The court noted that there is prima facie evidence of negligence beyond ordinary error, particularly pointing to improper stitching of the uterus that affected the petitioner’s reproductive health.
It emphasized that hospitals cannot evade accountability by citing record destruction, especially in cases involving life and health.
The court ruled that the petitioner’s constitutional right to safe motherhood and reproductive health under Article 38 was violated. It also stated that the lack of records cannot absolve institutions of responsibility in serious medical cases and state agencies failed to act in a timely manner, denying the victim access to justice.
The court further established that the state bears responsibility for compensation when its institutions fail to act promptly.
The Supreme Court has ordered the Nepal Medical Council and the hospital to complete a detailed investigation within 60 days and take necessary action if negligence is confirmed.
It has also directed the Ministry of Health and Population to provide relief and compensation to the victim for physical and mental suffering.
Additionally, the court has instructed authorities to form an expert team to investigate the case, regardless of record availability.
Highlighting gaps in the legal framework, the court has also directed the government to consider establishing a dedicated mechanism or “medical tribunal” to handle medical negligence cases more effectively.
The ruling reinforces accountability in the health sector and strengthens victims’ rights and state responsibility.
Legal experts believe the decision could set an important precedent, offering hope to other victims of medical negligence seeking justice.
Comment