Professional Documents
Culture Documents
August,
1964, in the
evening, late Suresh Chander
and his brother Ramesh
Chander were going on a scooter
from their office to their
residence. The deceased was driving the scooter and his
brother was
riding
his pillion. When
they were passing
against Sant Permanand Blind Relief Mission Building situated at
20, Alipur Road, a branch of the neem tree standing there
suddenly broke down and fell on the head of the deceased. His
head was crushed. He was rushed to Irvin Hospital where in spite
of medical care and attendance, he died the next day at about 10
a.m. A piece of wood was found embedded into his brain for
which a surgery had also to be performed on the deceased.
Deceased was survived by a widow, three minor sons and a minor
daughter and his mother. All the six brought a suit for damages
claiming Rs.3 lacs. A learned Single Judge sitting
on the
Original side of the High Court held
the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi liable for damages in torts and granted a decree of
Rs.90,000/- by way of compensation payable to the widow and
the children of the deceased.
Plaintif - Subhagwanti
Plaintif - Juggankhan
Judgement - Appeal
High Court
emphasising the opinions of authors
of well-recognised
medical
works instead
of basing its conclusions on
the
expert's evidence as, it was a alleged by the appellant that the
expert was a professional rival of the appellant
and was,
therefore, unsympathetic towards him. The trial
court and
the High Court were right in holding
that the appellant was
guilty
of negligence
and wrongful acts towards
the
patient and was
liable
for damages, because, the first
respondent's case that what
the appellant did was reduction of
the fracture without giving anaesthetic, and not mere
immobilisation with light traction 'as was the appellant's case,
was more acceptable
and consistent with the facts and
circumstances of the case.
ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor
chooses one course of action in preference to the other one
available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by
him was acceptable to the medical profession. It was a case
where a mop was left inside the lady patient's abdomen during
an operation. Peritonitis developed which led to a second surgery
being performed on her, but she could not survive. Liability for
negligence was fastened on the surgeon because no valid
explanation was forthcoming for the mop having been left inside
the abdomen of the lady. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was
held applicable 'in a case like this'.