2020 (12) TMI 1384 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for damages alleging medical negligence filed by the young man - any injury was caused to the plaintiff or not - person negligent - quantum and the person liable to pay the compensation. Whether the plaintiff pleaded the material facts to constitute negligence? - HELD THAT - Order 6 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading, relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. As observed by Courts, far too often, pleadings are to be interpreted not with formalistic rigour but with the full awareness of the legal literacy levels of the litigants and also the nature of the case - The purpose of pleadings is to intimate the opposite party about the nature of the case that is set up against him. The pleadings in the plaint, in the instant case, constitute sufficient material pleading, to put the defendants in the knowledge of the case of the plaintiff. The point is answered accordingly. Whether Ext. B1 is admissible in evidence? - HELD THAT - There are four stages before a Court of law can rely upon a document. They are (i) marking of a document, (ii) admissibility of a document, (iii) proof of contents of the document, and (iv) evaluation of the document. Reliance upon a document can be made by the court only if all the above four stages are complied with or satisfied. By the mere marking of a document, it does not become admissible in evidence. Further, the marking of a document and being admissible in evidence, will still not render the contents of a document as 'proved'. When a document, admissible in evidence, is marked, still to be relied upon by the courts, its contents will have to be proved. For the contents of a document to have a probative value, the person who wrote the contents or is aware of the contents and its veracity must be invited to give evidence about it - The finding of the learned Sub Judge, that Ext. B1 is inadmissible in evidence, is correct and justified in the circumstances and therefore, warrants no interference. Whether the defendants were negligent during the surgery resulting in injury to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages? - HELD THAT - It may be of relevance to refer to Ext. B1(a) which is the photocopy of the consent given by the plaintiff for the surgery. Even though the said document has many of the flaws that could be attributed to Ext. B1, still, since the signature in Ext. B1(a) is admitted, the same is looked into for the limited purpose of identifying the possible mishaps which were in contemplation for which consent was given. In none of the possible outcomes referred to in Ext. B1(a), is there a complication referred to or mentioned, of the nature that occurred to the plaintiff. The disability now suffered by the plaintiff is not seen referred to as an expected complication from a procedure of this nature. This also indicates that it is not a normal complication that has occurred to the plaintiff. Thus by the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitor, the defendants alone could have answered or explained the allegation of negligence. In the nature of the evidence adduced, the defendants have failed to prove the absence of negligence. The findings of the learned Sub Judge regarding the negligence of the defendants was perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and calls for no interference in this appeal. Hence the point is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Whether the damages awarded by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram, require interference, If so to what extent? - HELD THAT - The learned Counsel for the appellant had fairly submitted that the appellants are not challenging the quantum of damages awarded. Having stated so, in the absence of any challenge against the quantum of damages awarded, the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff pleaded the material facts to constitute negligence.
2. Whether Ext. B1 is admissible in evidence.
3. Whether the defendants were negligent during the surgery resulting in injury to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages.
4. Whether the damages awarded by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram, require interference, and if so, to what extent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff pleaded the material facts to constitute negligence.
The court examined whether the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded the material facts to constitute negligence. The plaintiff averred that he was given anesthesia and taken to the operation theater, and within thirty minutes, he was taken out after abandoning the operation. He developed postrio paresis and became crippled for life. It was alleged that the injury was sustained due to the negligent and irresponsible manner in which the keyhole surgery was performed by the 2nd defendant. The court noted that the purpose of pleadings is to intimate the opposite party about the nature of the case set up against him. In cases of medical negligence under anesthesia, the plaintiff may only specify the nature of the injury caused. The court concluded that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient material facts in a concise form, putting the defendants on notice about the case set by him. The point was answered in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue 2: Whether Ext. B1 is admissible in evidence.
Ext. B1, a photocopy of the alleged treatment record of the plaintiff, was marked by the defendants during the cross-examination of PW1. The court found that Ext. B1 was produced not along with the written statement but just before the commencement of evidence, and no foundation had been laid for marking such a photocopy as secondary evidence. The court emphasized that the contents of a document must be proved by primary or secondary evidence, and in this case, the foundation for accepting Ext. B1 as secondary evidence was not laid. The court held that Ext. B1 is inadmissible in evidence as secondary evidence and its contents cannot be looked into. The point was answered against the defendants.

Issue 3: Whether the defendants were negligent during the surgery resulting in injury to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages.
The court considered the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitor, which means "the thing speaks for itself." This principle applies when the patient suffers a complication not normally contemplated, shifting the onus to the defendant to provide an explanation. The court noted that the plaintiff, a healthy man who drove to the hospital, was taken out of the operation theater as a paraplegic. The explanation offered by the defendants was found to be vague and insufficient. The court observed that the defendants failed to produce the original of Ext. B1, did not examine key witnesses, and failed to prove the cause of the injury. The court concluded that the defendants failed to discharge their onus or explain the cause of the injury, and the findings of the Sub Judge regarding negligence were justified. The point was held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue 4: Whether the damages awarded by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram, require interference, and if so, to what extent.
The appellants did not challenge the quantum of damages awarded. The court affirmed the judgment dated 27.07.2019 in O.S. No. 1111 of 2011 of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, awarding Rs. 20,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization, along with costs. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of medical negligence and the quantum of damages awarded by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The defendants were held liable for the injury sustained by the plaintiff during the surgery, and the compensation awarded was affirmed.