The High Court has elaborately considered the arguments raised on behalf of the claimants regarding the cause of acute myocardial infarction. The contention that such a condition could occur due to a long bed rest, as deposed by the Doctor PW-1 also was negatived on the ground that there is no clear evidence as to such a bed rest having been advised for the patient. Admittedly, the inpatient treatment was only between 29.04.2006 and 03.05.2006 and after that the victim was stated to have undergone outpatient treatment till 12.08.2006. Though, it has been contended that on discharge he was advised bed rest, there is no specific period of bed rest spoken of by the witness or substantiated by documentary evidence. Admittedly, there was a non-healing ulcer on the right foot which did not respond to the treatment at the local hospital which prompted the reference to a higher medical centre. It was at the higher medical centre that the death occurred after a successful skin grafting procedure. The death could very well have been the after effect of the surgery, given the medical parameters of the patient. It cannot have any direct nexus to the accident which was not conclusively established; the expert medical opinion being otherwise. {Para 9}
10. The injuries suffered in the accident, as deposed by PW-1, the Doctor and found by the Tribunal were not very serious. The non-healing ulcer could have been for various causes, especially when the victim was known to be a diabetic, which necessitated the skin grafting procedure. The procedure also was carried out successfully but in the aftermath of the surgery, the patient succumbed to death.
11. Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring for reason of a long bed rest, it cannot be assumed, without clear evidence to substantiate the death having been caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident that the death occurred by reason of the accident. There cannot be found even a preponderance of probability, going by the Doctor's evidence. We cannot interfere with the well-considered judgment of the High Court, which though rejected the claim for compensation for death, considered the claim for injuries sustained. We are unable to interfere with the findings of the High Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025
Decided On: 04.09.2025
Haseena and Ors. Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.
