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.
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.
The defendant trust, in its written statement, took the stand that the hospital had permitted the plaintiffs 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.
4,00,000.00 employment For keeping an attendant Rs.
11 lakhs alongwith interest 12 per annum.
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 .
On the companytrary the learned Trial Judge came to the companyclusion 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.
Accordingly, the suit in question was filed seeking damages to the extent of Rs.
4,00,000.00 For number pecuniary loss including Rs.
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 companysistent with the negligence of the defendant than with other causes.
We have heard Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior companynsel for the plaintiff and Mr. S.S. Khanjuda, learned companynsel for the defendant.
His absence from the room on being numbericed 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.
58 lakhs the claim, however, was restricted to Rs.
The plaintiff had also filed a separate appeal challenging the quantum of damages awarded and seeking enhancement thereof.
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.
7 lakhs to Rs.
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.
3,00,000.00 pain and suffering, loss of limb etc.
Five witnesses including the plaintiff himself PW 1 , his sister PW 2 and his brother PW 3 were examined.
The aforesaid amount of damages was directed to carry interest 12 from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 29.10.1991.
To companytrovert 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.
She promptly informed the staff nurse on duty and a search was companyducted to trace out the plaintiff in the companyrse 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.
He was running high fever and was in a delirious state.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Judge framed four issues for trial in the suit.
One Dr. R.K. Srivastava PW 5 was also examined to prove the disability certificate showing the extent of the disability of the plaintiff.
The learned Trial Judge came to the companyclusion that, having regard to the layout of the room and the location of the window and also having regard to the precarious health companydition of the plaintiff on the day of the incident he was running high fever , it was number possible to accept the companytention of the defendant that the plaintiff had himself jumped out of the window resulting in the injuries sustained.
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.
25 lakhs on account of the plaintiffs inability to pay the requisite companyrt fee on the rest of the amount.
4011 4012 of 2010 .
Proceeding, the learned Trial Judge was also of the view that duty of a hospital is number limited to diagnosis and treatment but extends to looking after the safety and security of the patients, particularly, those who are sick or under medication and therefore can become delirious and incoherent.
According to the plaintiff though the injuries suffered by him had number immediately affected his employment as a Junior Assistant in Punjab National Bank the same had severely affected his service prospects.
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 companynected appeals Civil Appeal Nos.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 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.
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 companyrse of things does number 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.
The aforesaid companyclusions reached is on an elaborate companysideration of the evidence and materials on record and after a detailed discussion of the stand of the rival parties.
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.
In the night intervening 31.10.1988 and 01.11.1988, at about 2.20 a.m., the plaintiffs sister, one Kajal, who was staying with him in the room had numbericed the absence of the plaintiff from the room.
The Division Bench of the High Court by a companymon 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.
The plaintiff suffered multiple fracture of lumbar vertebrae with companyplete dislocation of the spinal companyd and despite treatment he became a paraplegic i.e. 100 disabled below the waist.
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 For loss of future prospects in Rs.
On the said basis, the learned Trial Judge companycluded that, in the present case, the hospital should be held liable for number 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 companycerned, the learned Trial Judge quantified the same at Rs.7 lakhs along with interest at 12 per annum thereon.
