.jpg)
8. The maxim res ipsa loquitur in its classic form has been stated by Erle C.J.
(1) where the thing is shown to be under the management of the Defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the Defendants, that the accident arose from want of care. Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks(1865) 3 H and C 596 , 601
The maxim applies to a case in which certain facts proved by the Plaintiff, by itself, would call for an explanation from the Defendant without the Plaintiff having to allege and prove any specific act or omission of the Defendant.
9. In Shyam Sunder and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0208/1974 : 1974 (1) SCC 690 it has been explained that the principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if the Plaintiff was invariably required to prove the precise cause of the accident when the relevant facts are unknown to him but are within the knowledge of the Defendant. It was also explained that the doctrine would apply to a situation when the mere happening of the accident is more consistent with the negligence of the Defendant than with other causes.
10. We have considered the case of the respective parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof; the judgment under appeal as well as the view taken by the learned Trial Judge besides the arguments and contentions advanced before us. The learned courts have applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to the present case to cast the burden of proving that there was no negligence on the Defendant.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4010 OF 2010
ASHISH KUMAR MAZUMDAR
... APPELLANT (S)
... RESPONDENT (S)
VERSUS
AISHI RAM BATRA CHARITABLE
HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4011-4012 of 2010
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
Decided On:
Suit No. 3413 of 1991 filed by one Ashish Kumar
Mazumdar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) was
decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi
awarding a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs with interest @ 12% per
annum on account of damages for injuries suffered by the
plaintiff while undergoing treatment in the Batra Hospital,
Delhi.
The aforesaid judgment and decree passed on
02.12.2008 was challenged in appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court by the defendant in the suit i.e. the
trust managing the hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
defendant’).
The plaintiff had also filed a separate appeal
challenging the quantum of damages awarded and seeking
enhancement thereof. The Division Bench of the High Court
by a common order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the appeal
filed by the defendant trust and allowed the appeal filed by
the plaintiff enhancing the amount of damages awarded
from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 11 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12%
per annum. Not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed Civil Appeal
No.4010 of 2010, whereas aggrieved by the dismissal of its
appeal, the defendant trust has filed the connected appeals
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4011-4012 of 2010).
2.
We have heard Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior
counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. S.S. Khanjuda, learned
counsel for the defendant.
3.
According to the plaintiff, he was admitted as an indoor
patient in the Batra Hospital on 27.10.1988 and was lodged
in Room No.305 on the third floor of the hospital. He was
running high fever and was in a delirious state. In the night
intervening 31.10.1988 and 01.11.1988, at about 2.20 a.m.,
the plaintiff’s sister, one Kajal, who was staying with him in
the room had noticed the absence of the plaintiff from the
room. She promptly informed the staff nurse on duty and a
search was conducted to trace out the plaintiff in the course
of which a security guard, Hans Raj, found the plaintiff lying
on the ground floor in the oncology gallery of the hospital
and at a distance of 50 yards from a point immediately
below the window of room No. 305.
multiple
fracture
of
lumbar
The plaintiff suffered
vertebrae
with
complete
dislocation of the spinal cord and despite treatment he
became a paraplegic i.e. 100% disabled below the waist.
Though the plaint is silent on the circumstances in which the
injuries were caused or the manner in which the same were
sustained, according to the plaintiff, as at the time of the
incident he was an indoor patient in the hospital it was the
duty and responsibility of the hospital authorities to take
care of the plaintiff who was suffering from high fever and
was in a delirious state. The plaintiff had alleged that it is on
account of the absence of due and reasonable care on the
part of the hospital authorities that the incident could occur
disabling the plaintiff for the rest of his life. According to the
plaintiff though the injuries suffered by him had not
immediately affected his employment as a Junior Assistant in
Punjab National Bank the same had severely affected his
service prospects. Accordingly, the suit in question was filed
seeking damages to the extent of Rs. 58 lakhs; the claim,
however, was restricted to Rs. 25 lakhs on account of the
plaintiff’s inability to pay the requisite court fee on the rest
of the amount.
4.
The defendant trust, in its written statement, took the
stand that the hospital had permitted the plaintiff’s sister to
stay in the room as an attendant and that the plaintiff had
himself jumped out of the window of his room despite the
presence of his sister leading to the injuries suffered.
On
the said broad facts the defendant denied the allegation of
negligence and absence of due care on its part as claimed
by the plaintiff in the suit.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Trial Judge framed four issues for trial in the suit. Five
witnesses including the plaintiff himself (PW-1), his sister
(PW-2) and his brother (PW-3) were examined. One Dr. R.K.
Srivastava (PW-5) was also examined to prove the disability
certificate showing the extent of the disability of the plaintiff.
To controvert the case of the plaintiff, the defendant had
examined one Dr. Arun Dewan (DW-1) who had treated the
plaintiff and the security guard Hans Raj (DW-2) who had
found the plaintiff in an injured state.
6.
The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that,
having regard to the layout of the room and the location of
the window and also having regard to the precarious health
condition of the plaintiff on the day of the incident (he was
running high fever), it was not possible to accept the
contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had himself
jumped out of the window resulting in the injuries sustained.
On the contrary the learned Trial Judge came to the
conclusion that the facts established by the evidence on
record attracted the principle of res ipsa loquitur and,
therefore, it was for the defendant to prove the absence of
any negligence and due care and attention on its part.
Proceeding, the learned Trial Judge was also of the view that
duty of a hospital is not limited to diagnosis and treatment
but extends to looking after the safety and security of the
patients,
particularly,
medication
and
those
therefore
who
can
are
become
sick
or
delirious
under
and
incoherent. Adverting to the facts before him, the learned
Judge took the view that it is evident that in the present case
the plaintiff, who was suffering from high fever, had gone out
for a stroll in the middle of the night being unable to sleep.
His absence from the room on being noticed by his sister
(PW-2) a search was organized and the plaintiff was found
lying on the ground floor in the oncology gallery of the
hospital with the injuries in question. On the said basis, the
learned Trial Judge concluded that, in the present case, the
hospital should be held liable for not maintaining the
necessary vigil in the hospital premises to ensure the safety
of its patients and it is on account of the absence of such
vigil that the plaintiff, despite his poor health, was able to
walk around and in the process had sustained the injuries in
question. So far as the quantum of damages is concerned,
the learned Trial Judge quantified the same at Rs.7 lakhs
along with interest at 12% per annum thereon.
7.
In appeal, the Division Bench reiterated the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Judge holding the same to be
justified in the totality of the facts proved in the case.
Additionally, the Division Bench was of the view that the
plaintiff was entitled to a total amount of Rs.11 lakhs by way
of damages which was quantified in the following manner :
(i) For loss of
employment
future
prospects
in
Rs. 4,00,000.00
(ii) For keeping an attendant Rs. 4,00,000.00
(iii) For non-pecuniary loss including pain Rs. 3,00,000.00
and suffering, loss of limb etc.
The aforesaid amount of damages was directed to carry
interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit i.e.
29.10.1991.
8.
The maxim res ipsa loquitur in its classic form has
been stated by Erle C.J.
(1)
“........where the thing is shown to be
under the management of the defendant
or his servants, and the accident is such
as in the ordinary course of things does
not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendants, that the
accident arose from want of care.”1
The maxim applies to a case in which certain facts
proved
by
the
plaintiff,
by
itself,
would
call
for
an
explanation from the defendant without the plaintiff having
to allege and prove any specific act or omission of the
defendant.
9.
In Shyam Sunder and Others vs. The State of
Rajasthan2 it has been explained that the principal function
of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if the
plaintiff was invariably required to prove the precise cause of
the accident when the relevant facts are unknown to him but
are within the knowledge of the defendant.
It was also
explained that the doctrine would apply to a situation when
the mere happening of the accident is more consistent with
the negligence of the defendant than with other causes.
Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks, (1865) 3 H & C 596, 601
1974 (1) SCC 690
10. We have considered the case of the respective parties
and the evidence adduced in support thereof; the judgment
under appeal as well as the view taken by the learned Trial
Judge besides the arguments and contentions advanced
before us. The learned courts have applied the principle of
res ipsa loquitur to the present case to cast the burden of
proving that there was no negligence on the defendant.
Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court has held the defendant liable for
negligence and failure to take due care of the plaintiff who
was an indoor patient in the hospital.
The aforesaid
conclusions reached is on an elaborate consideration of the
evidence and materials on record and after a detailed
discussion of the stand of the rival parties.
On a
consideration of the facts of the present case we do not find
any error in the application of the principle of res ipsa
loquitur to the present case.
In so far as the findings of
negligence and absence of due care of the defendant is
concerned, we are of the view that such findings being
concurrent findings of fact the same ought not to be
reopened by us in the appeal filed by the defendant-hospital
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Any such exercise
would be wholly inappropriate to the extraordinary and
highly discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court by the
Constitution. Even otherwise, we do not find anything
inherently
improbable
or
outrageously
illogical
in
the
conclusions reached by the learned Trial Judge as affirmed in
appeal.
The appeals filed by the defendant-hospital are,
therefore, dismissed.
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
we are of the view that the three broad heads considered by
the Division Bench for award of damages are sufficiently
representative of the claim of the plaintiff.
The precise
quantum of compensation that should be awarded in any
given case cannot and, in fact, need not be determined with
mathematical exactitude or arithmetical precision. So long
the compensation awarded broadly represents what could be
the entitlement of a claimant in any given case the
discretion vested in the trial court and the regular first
appellate court ought not to be lightly interfered.
Taking
into account the facts before us and having regard to the
basis on which damages have been awarded, we do not
consider the same to be either inadequate or inappropriate
so as to justify interference. Accordingly, the appeal filed by
the plaintiff is also dismissed.
12.
Consequently and in the light of the aforegoing
discussions, both sets of appeals are dismissed.
.................................CJI.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
....................................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
.....................................J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 22, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment