Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.

Sushila Devi 1964

Plaintif - Sushila Devi

Defendant - Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Facts Of The Case - On 18th

August,
1964, in the
evening, late Suresh Chander
and his brother Ramesh
Chander were going on a scooter
from their office to their
residence. The deceased was driving the scooter and his
brother was
riding
his pillion. When
they were passing
against Sant Permanand Blind Relief Mission Building situated at
20, Alipur Road, a branch of the neem tree standing there
suddenly broke down and fell on the head of the deceased. His
head was crushed. He was rushed to Irvin Hospital where in spite
of medical care and attendance, he died the next day at about 10
a.m. A piece of wood was found embedded into his brain for
which a surgery had also to be performed on the deceased.
Deceased was survived by a widow, three minor sons and a minor
daughter and his mother. All the six brought a suit for damages
claiming Rs.3 lacs. A learned Single Judge sitting
on the
Original side of the High Court held
the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi liable for damages in torts and granted a decree of
Rs.90,000/- by way of compensation payable to the widow and
the children of the deceased.

Judgement - For the

foregoing reasons both the appeals are

held liable to be dismissed. Civil Appeal No.687/86 filed by the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi is dismissed with costs payable by

the
appellant-Municipal Corporation to the respondentclaimants. Civil Appeal No.4242/86 filed by the claimants is
dismissed without any order as to costs.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.

Subhagwanti

Plaintif - Subhagwanti

Defendant - Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Facts Of The Case - A clock-tower in the heart of the

Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed causing the death of a number of
persons. The structure was 80 years old whereas its normal life
was 40-45 years. The Municipal Corporation of Dellhi having the
control of the structure failed to take care and was therefore,
liable. Three suits for damages were filed by the respondents as
heirs of three persons who died as a result of the collapse of the
Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, belonging to the appellantCorporation, formerly the Municipal Committee of Delhi.
The trial court held that it was the duty of the Municipal
Committee to take proper care of buildings so that they should
not prove a source of danger to persons using the highway as a
matter of right, and granted decrees of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 15,000
and 20,000 respectively to the plaintiffs in each of the three suits.

Judgement - The High Court was right in applying the doctrine

res ipsa loquitur as in the circumstances of the case the mere
fact that there was a fall of the clock tower, which
was
exclusively under the ownership and control of
the appellant,
would justify raising an inference of negligence so as to establish
a prima facie case against the appellant. There is a special
obligation on the owner of adjoining premises for the safety of
the structures which he keeps besides
the highway.
If these
structures
fall into disrepair so as to be of potential danger to
the passersby or to be a nuisance, the owner is liable to anyone
using the highway who is injured by reason of the disrepair.

Juggankhan vs State of Madhya

Pradesh 1961

Plaintif - Juggankhan

Defendant - State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts Of The Case - The accused, a registered Homoeopath,

administered 24 drops of stramonium and a leaf of dhatura to the
patient suffering from guinea worm. The accused had not studied
the effect of such substances being administered to a human
being. The poisonous contents of the leaf of dhatura, were not
satisfactorily established by the prosecution. This Court (the

Hon'ble Supreme Court) exonerated the accused of the charge

under Section 302 IPC. However, on a finding that stramonium
and dhatura leaves are poisonous and in no system of medicine,
except perhaps Ayurvedic system, the dhatura leaf is given as
cure for guinea worm, the act of the accused who prescribed
poisonous material without studying their probable effect was
held to be a rash and negligent act. It would be seen that the
profession of a Homoeopath which the accused claimed to
profess did not permit use of the substance administered to the
patient. The accused had no knowledge of the effect of such
substance being administered and yet he did so. In this
background, the inference of the accused being guilty of rash and
negligent act was drawn against him. On observation of this, The
Hon'ble Supreme Court opines as ''In our opinion, the principle
which emerges is that a doctor who administers a medicine
known to or used in a particular branch of medical profession
impliedly declares that he has knowledge of that branch of
science and if he does not, in fact, possess that knowledge, he is
prima facie acting with rashness or negligence.

Judgement - Appeal

by special leave from the judgment and

order dated May 10, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1961. S.
Mohan Kumaramangalam, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P.
Singh and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the
respondent. In the result, the appellant's conviction under S.
302, I.P.C.,
is set aside and he is convicted under s. 304A
and sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Conviction
altered.

Dr Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs Dr

Trimbak Bapu Godbole

Plaintif - Dr Laxman Balakrishna Joshi

Defendant - Dr Trimbak Bapu Godbole

Facts Of The Case - A case under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

''... The duties which a doctor owes to his patients came up for
consideration. The Court held that a person who holds himself out
ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes
that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for that purpose. Such
a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties,
viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a
duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given or a duty of
care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of
those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.
The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of
skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of
care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and
competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of
each case is what the law requires. The doctor no doubt has a
discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the
patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of
emergency. In this case, the death of patient was caused due to
shock resulting from reduction of the fracture attempted by
doctor without taking the elementary caution of giving
anaesthetic to the patient.

Judgement - (1) There was nothing wrong in the

High Court
emphasising the opinions of authors
of well-recognised
medical
works instead
of basing its conclusions on
the
expert's evidence as, it was a alleged by the appellant that the
expert was a professional rival of the appellant
and was,
therefore, unsympathetic towards him. The trial
court and
the High Court were right in holding
that the appellant was

guilty
of negligence
and wrongful acts towards
the
patient and was
liable
for damages, because, the first
respondent's case that what
the appellant did was reduction of
the fracture without giving anaesthetic, and not mere
immobilisation with light traction 'as was the appellant's case,
was more acceptable
and consistent with the facts and
circumstances of the case.

Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel

Plaintif - Poonam Verma

Defendant - Ashwin Patel

Facts Of The Case - A doctor registered as medical

practitioner and entitled to practice in Homoeopathy only,
prescribed an allopathic medicine to the patient. The patient
died. The doctor was held to be negligent and liable to
compensate the wife of the deceased for the death of her
husband on the ground that the doctor who was entitled to
practice in homoeopathy only, was under a statutory duty not to
enter the field of any other system of medicine and since he
trespassed into a prohibited field and prescribed the allopathic
medicine to the patient causing the death, his conduct amounted
to negligence per se actionable in civil law. Mrs. Verma called
opposite party no. 1 again to see her husband and hence he went
to examine Mr. Verma at his house on that day
in the evening.
It was found that Shri Verma had mild fever
and since the fever
had continued for the third day, opposite party no. l states that
he advised Mr.Verma to undergo pathological tests, namely, blood
test & urine examination etc.

Judgement - It is based on the premise that most effective

way to treat disease is to use drugs or other agents that
produce the symptoms of the disease in healthy persons. This
theory had its origin in or about 460 B.C. when the Greek
physician, Hippocrates,
noted the similarity between
the
effect of some drugs and the symptoms of the diseases they
seemed to relieve. It was, however, in the late 18th Cantury that
this theory was tested and popularised by German Physician,
Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann as a
new form of
therapeutic treatment after six years test study of scores of drugs
on himself and others. Ultimately, in 1796, he published his
findings in a leading Medical journal under the caption "On a New
Principle for Ascertaining
the Curative Power of Drugs which
set in motion a process of continued research in all directions
including
its Pharmacology with the result that Homoeopathy is
taught today as a positive science in various Medical Colleges all
over the country.

Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs State

of Maharastra

Plaintif - Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa

Defendant - State of Maharastra

Facts Of The Case - the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that

in the very nature of medical profession, skills differs from doctor
to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are
available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a
doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his

ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor
chooses one course of action in preference to the other one
available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by
him was acceptable to the medical profession. It was a case
where a mop was left inside the lady patient's abdomen during
an operation. Peritonitis developed which led to a second surgery
being performed on her, but she could not survive. Liability for
negligence was fastened on the surgeon because no valid
explanation was forthcoming for the mop having been left inside
the abdomen of the lady. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was
held applicable 'in a case like this'.

Judgement -The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of

the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court which has
reversed a decree for Rs.36,000/- passed by the Civil Judge,
Second Division, Aurangabad, as damages on account of the
death of one Chandrikabai who was the wife of appellant no.1
after she had undergone a sterilization operation at the Civil
Hospital, Aurangabad. The case of the appellants before the trial
court was that the deceased Chandrikabai was admitted in the
Civil Hospital, Aurangabad on 10th July, 1963, for delivery of a
child. This maternity hospital
is attached to the Medical College
at Aurangabad and respondent no.2 was working in the
department of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a doctor and it is
she who attended on Chandrikabai. Respondent no.3 was the
Medical Officer of the said hospital while respondent no.4 was the
Dean of Medical College, Aurangabad.Chandrikabai delivered a
male child .As she had got herself admitted to this hospital with a
view to undergo a sterilization operation after the delivery, the
said operation was performed by respondent no.2 on 13th July,
1963.