Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.Sushila Devi 1964

Plaintif - Sushila Devi

Defendant - Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Facts Of The Case - On 18th 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 10a.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 minordaughter 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.

Judgement - For the foregoing reasons both the appeals are held liable to be dismissed. Civil Appeal No.687/86 filed by the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi is dismissed with costs payable by the appellant-Municipal Corporation to the respondent-claimants. Civil Appeal No.4242/86 filed by the claimants is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.Subhagwanti

Plaintif - Subhagwanti

Defendant - Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Facts Of The Case - A clock-tower in the heart of the Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed causing the death of a number ofpersons. The structure was 80 years old whereas its normal life was 40-45 years. The Municipal Corporation of Dellhi having the control of the structure failed to take care and was therefore, liable. Three suits for damages were filed by the respondents as heirs of three persons who died as a result of the collapse of the Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellant-Corporation, formerly the Municipal Committee of Delhi.

The trial court held that it was the duty of the Municipal Committee to take proper care of buildings so that they should not prove a source of danger to persons using the highway as a matter of right, and granted decrees of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 15,000 and 20,000 respectively to the plaintiffs in each of the three suits.

Judgement - The High Court was right in applying the doctrineres ipsa loquitur as in the circumstances of the case the mere fact that there was a fall of the clock tower, which was exclusively under the ownership and control of the appellant, would justify raising an inference of negligence so as to establish a prima facie case against the appellant. There is a special obligation on the owner of adjoining premises for the safety of the structures which he keeps besides the highway. If these structures fall into disrepair so as to be of potential danger tothe passersby or to be a nuisance, the owner is liable to anyone using the highway who is injured by reason of the disrepair.

Juggankhan vs State of MadhyaPradesh 1961

Plaintif - Juggankhan

Defendant - State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts Of The Case - The accused, a registered Homoeopath, administered 24 drops of stramonium and a leaf of dhatura to thepatient suffering from guinea worm. The accused had not studied the effect of such substances being administered to a human being. The poisonous contents of the leaf of dhatura, were not satisfactorily established by the prosecution. This Court (the

Hon'ble Supreme Court) exonerated the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC. However, on a finding that stramonium and dhatura leaves are poisonous and in no system of medicine, except perhaps Ayurvedic system, the dhatura leaf is given as cure for guinea worm, the act of the accused who prescribed poisonous material without studying their probable effect was held to be a rash and negligent act. It would be seen that the profession of a Homoeopath which the accused claimed to profess did not permit use of the substance administered to the patient. The accused had no knowledge of the effect of such substance being administered and yet he did so. In this background, the inference of the accused being guilty of rash andnegligent act was drawn against him. On observation of this, The Hon'ble Supreme Court opines as ''In our opinion, the principle which emerges is that a doctor who administers a medicine known to or used in a particular branch of medical profession impliedly declares that he has knowledge of that branch of science and if he does not, in fact, possess that knowledge, he is prima facie acting with rashness or negligence.

Judgement - Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 10, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1961. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. In the result, the appellant's conviction under S. 302, I.P.C., is set aside and he is convicted under s. 304A and sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Conviction altered.

Dr Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs DrTrimbak Bapu Godbole

Plaintif - Dr Laxman Balakrishna Joshi

Defendant - Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole

Facts Of The Case - A case under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. ''... The duties which a doctor owes to his patients came up for consideration. The Court held that a person who holds himself outready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for that purpose. Sucha person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to thepatient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency. In this case, the death of patient was caused due to shock resulting from reduction of the fracture attempted by doctor without taking the elementary caution of giving anaesthetic to the patient.

Judgement - (1) There was nothing wrong in the High Court emphasising the opinions of authors of well-recognised medical works instead of basing its conclusions on theexpert'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 ofthe 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.

Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel

Plaintif - Poonam Verma

Defendant - Ashwin Patel

Facts Of The Case - A doctor registered as medical practitioner and entitled to practice in Homoeopathy only, prescribed an allopathic medicine to the patient. The patient died. The doctor was held to be negligent and liable to compensate the wife of the deceased for the death of her husband on the ground that the doctor who was entitled to practice in homoeopathy only, was under a statutory duty not to enter the field of any other system of medicine and since he trespassed into a prohibited field and prescribed the allopathic medicine to the patient causing the death, his conduct amounted to negligence per se actionable in civil law. Mrs. Verma called opposite party no. 1 again to see her husband and hence he wentto examine Mr. Verma at his house on that day in the evening. It was found that Shri Verma had mild fever and since the feverhad continued for the third day, opposite party no. l states that he advised Mr.Verma to undergo pathological tests, namely, bloodtest & urine examination etc.

Judgement - It is based on the premise that most effective way to treat disease is to use drugs or other agents that produce the symptoms of the disease in healthy persons. This theory had its origin in or about 460 B.C. when the Greek physician, Hippocrates, noted the similarity between the effect of some drugs and the symptoms of the diseases they seemed to relieve. It was, however, in the late 18th Cantury that this theory was tested and popularised by German Physician, Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann as a new form of therapeutic treatment after six years test study of scores of drugson himself and others. Ultimately, in 1796, he published his findings in a leading Medical journal under the caption "On a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative Power of Drugs which set in motion a process of continued research in all directions including its Pharmacology with the result that Homoeopathy istaught today as a positive science in various Medical Colleges all over the country.

Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs Stateof Maharastra

Plaintif - Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa

Defendant - State of Maharastra

Facts Of The Case - the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that in the very nature of medical profession, skills differs from doctor to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his

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'.

Judgement -The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court which has reversed a decree for Rs.36,000/- passed by the Civil Judge, Second Division, Aurangabad, as damages on account of the death of one Chandrikabai who was the wife of appellant no.1 after she had undergone a sterilization operation at the Civil Hospital, Aurangabad. The case of the appellants before the trial court was that the deceased Chandrikabai was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Aurangabad on 10th July, 1963, for delivery of a child. This maternity hospital is attached to the Medical Collegeat Aurangabad and respondent no.2 was working in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a doctor and it is she who attended on Chandrikabai. Respondent no.3 was the Medical Officer of the said hospital while respondent no.4 was theDean of Medical College, Aurangabad.Chandrikabai delivered a male child .As she had got herself admitted to this hospital with aview to undergo a sterilization operation after the delivery, the said operation was performed by respondent no.2 on 13th July, 1963.