SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1034

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda and D.Y. Chandrachud
Sheela Hirba Naik Gaunekar and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Apollo Hospitals Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3625 of 2005, Civil Appeal Nos. 4408 of 2005
Decided on 5.10.2016

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants (CA No. 3625 of 2005):Ms. Shobha, Shrey Dambhare, Advocates.
For the Appellants (CA No. 4408 of 2005):Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Niharika, Aman Shukla, Pratap Venugopla, (For M/s. K.J. John & Co.), Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Niharika, Aman Shukla, Pratap Venugopla, (For M/s. K.J. John & Co.), Gautam Narayan, R.A. Iyer, Shatrajit Banerji, Siddhartha Chowdhury, Ms. Shobha, Shrey Dambhare, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Quantum of compensation can be based on Income tax declaration filed by deceased.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 23—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of patient shortly after Angioplasty—Claim for more compensation—Finding recorded by Commission that there was medical negligence on part of hospital in not taking proper post-operative care of deceased, is based on legal and substantive evidence on record—Same has been properly appreciated by Commission in exercise of its original jurisdiction—Income tax declaration filed by deceased to Income Tax Department during financial year in which death had occurred is on record as evidence on behalf of complainant in justification of her claim—Total compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs alongwith 9 % interest awarded. (Paras 6 to 10)

       Result: Appeals partly allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda—The present appeals arise out of an order dated 13.5.2005, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) in Original Petition No. 103 of 1997. Appeals before this Court have been filed by the complainant as well as the Apollo Hospital, urging various legal contentions.

2. Since the facts in both the appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience we refer to the facts in the appeal filed by the complainant, being Civil Appeal No. 3625 of 2005.

3. The complainant is the wife of the deceased-Mr. Gaunekar, who underwent angioplasty treatment in the Apollo Hospitals Ltd., Chennai. Angioplasty procedure was conducted on 14.5.1996. The deceased died shortly thereafter of a heart attack on 18.5.1996. The complainant-wife preferred a claim petition before the Commission alleging that the death of her husband was on account of the medical negligence on the part of the hospital and its doctors and due to deficiency of service. Thus, she is entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs. The Commission heard the complainant-wife and the respondent Hospital, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and examined the correctness of the claim made by the complainant-wife. The Commission also examined RW.1-Dr. Mathews Samuel Kalarickal, the doctor who performed the surgery.

4. The Commission being a fact finding authority, examined the evidence and relevant records and came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the respondent-hospital. The correctness of these findings has been questioned by the respondent-Apollo Hospitals in the connected appeal filed by it, urging that the said findings are not based on proper evaluation of evidence on record. It is further contended that the death of the deceased had been caused due to heart failure and therefore, the finding recorded by the Commission that death had occurred as a result of medical negligence is an erroneous finding. It further contended that the finding recorded by the Commission in awarding amount of Rs. 2 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation, is also not legally correct based on any substantial evidence.

5. The complainant has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commission and has sought enhancement of compensation. It is contended that the Commission recorded a finding of fact on the question of medical negligence on the basis of the evidence of RW.1-Dr. Mathews in his cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. It is contended that the fact of negligence in taking post-operative care of the deceased after the angioplasty has been proved by the evidence on record and after assigning valid reasons. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant contends that after recording such a finding, the Commission erred in awarding just Rs. 2 lakhs as the amount of compensation on account of death of the deceased.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length. Our attention was drawn to the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence on record, including the cross-examination of Dr. Mathews. After a perusal of the evidence on record, in our considered view, the finding recorded by the Commission that there was medical negligence on the part of the hospital in not taking proper post-operative care of the deceased, is based on legal and substantive evidence on record. The same has been properly appreciated by the Commission in exercise of its original jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not find any error, much less any perversity, in the findings recorded by the Commission so as to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Civil Appeal No. 4408 of 2005, filed by the Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. Is liable to be dismissed and is accord





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top