1996 (2) TMI 595 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Negligence in performing the sterilisation operation.
2. Vicarious liability of the State of Maharashtra.
3. Causation of death due to negligence.
4. Adequacy of medical care provided post-operation.
5. Tampering with medical records.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Negligence in performing the sterilisation operation:
The appellants claimed that the sterilisation operation performed by respondent No. 2 on Chandrikabai was done negligently, resulting in a mop being left inside her abdomen. This negligence was supported by the testimony of Dr. Divan, who found the mop during a second operation. The trial court accepted this evidence and held respondent No. 2 negligent, while the High Court acknowledged the negligence in leaving the mop but did not find it to be the cause of death.

2. Vicarious liability of the State of Maharashtra:
The High Court initially ruled that the State could not be held liable for tortious acts in a hospital maintained by it, considering it a sovereign function. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing precedents like State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr., and N. Nagendra Rao and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which established that the State can be vicariously liable for negligence of its employees in non-sovereign functions, including running a hospital.

3. Causation of death due to negligence:
The trial court found that the negligence of respondent No. 2 in leaving the mop inside Chandrikabai's abdomen led to her death due to peritonitis. The High Court, however, found conflicting expert opinions on the exact cause of death and concluded that the appellants failed to prove causation. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, determining that the negligence in leaving the mop was the proximate cause of death, thereby holding respondents liable.

4. Adequacy of medical care provided post-operation:
The appellants alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to provide proper post-operative care, which was supported by the deteriorating condition of Chandrikabai post-operation. The trial court agreed with this, but the High Court found the evidence insufficient to establish inadequate care. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the overall negligence, including inadequate post-operative care, contributed to the fatal outcome.

5. Tampering with medical records:
The trial court observed that the original medical documents were filed late and appeared tampered with, leading to the rejection of the respondents' expert evidence. The High Court acknowledged some tampering but did not find it sufficient to affect the case's outcome. The Supreme Court did not find this issue central to its decision but noted the trial court's findings on tampering as part of the overall negligence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, holding the State of Maharashtra vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, resulting in Chandrikabai's death. The appellants were awarded damages of Rs. 36,000, with costs throughout.