Back
High Court Of Delhi
M.L.SINGHAL - Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP MATHUR - Respondent
Suit 68 of 1981
Decided On : 10/30/1995
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - DEATH OF PATIENT - LIABILITY OF DOCTOR AND HOSPITAL - STANDARD OF CARE - DUTY OF DOCTOR - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - DAMAGES - MENTAL AGONY - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff's wife died while undergoing treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital under the care of Dr. Pradeep Mathur. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Mathur was negligent in not consulting a nephrologist, not providing dialysis, and administering excessive blood transfusions, which led to the patient's death. The hospital was also alleged to be negligent in providing poor nursing care.
Finding of the Court:
1. The suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the other doctors involved in the patient's care were not indispensable parties. 2. The cause of action was not vague and disclosed a cause of action against Dr. Mathur. 3. The plaint was not liable to be rejected for not disclosing material particulars. 4. Dr. Mathur was negligent in not consulting a nephrologist, not providing dialysis, and administering excessive blood transfusions, which led to the patient's death. 5. The hospital was also negligent in providing poor nursing care. 6. Plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from Dr. Mathur and the hospital for the death of his wife. 7. Plaintiff was also entitled to recover damages for the mental agony he suffered due to the negligence of the defendants. 8. The counterclaim filed by Dr. Mathur was barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant? 3. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? 4. Whether plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose material particulars? 5. Whether Smt. Gayatri Devi, plaintiff's wife remained under the treatment of defendant No. 1 during the period 1-7-1978 to 21-8-1978? 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 acted in a callous and negligent manner in the discharge of his duty as a doctor while treating plaintiff's wife and as a result thereof plaintiff's wife died prematurely on 21-8-1978? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 from defendant No. 1 as damages? 8. Whether the defendant No. 2 is also liable for the amount of damages because defendant No. 1 was in the employment of defendant No. 2? 9. Whether the plaintiff defamed defendant No. I and caused him mental agony? 10. If issue No. 9 is decided in favour of defendant No. 1, then to what amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff liable to pay to defendant No. I? 11. Whether the counter claim is barred by time? 11-A. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The standard of care required of a doctor is that of a reasonably competent doctor practicing in the same field. 2. A doctor has a duty to consult with other specialists when necessary to ensure that the patient receives the best possible care. 3. A hospital is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees. 4. Damages for mental agony can be awarded in cases of medical negligence. 5. A claim for medical negligence must be brought within two years from the date of the alleged negligence.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The hospital was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to the plaintiff as compensation for the mental agony he suffered due to the negligence of the nursing staff. The counterclaim filed by Dr. Mathur was dismissed.
( 1 ) IT is most unfortunate that the life of plaintiff s wife, Smt. Gayatri Devi had been snatched by the cruel hands, but the question for determinaion is whose hands were those? Were those of a doctor, attending upon her or of the Supernatural powner controlling this universe? If the answer is that those hands were of a doctor then we have to keep in mind that to err is human though all errors are not pardonable nor all errors are deliberate and intentional. ft is only when the enror arose out of sheer negligence and carelessness or callous treatment of the patient by the doctor or because of the act of the hospital authority, the aggrieved party would be entitled to claim compensation/damage for having lost the near and dear one. It will thus be called causing death at the cruel hands of that human being the so called doctor.
( 2 ) SMT. Gayatri Devi wife. of the plaintiff Sh. M. L. Singhal, died on 21st August, 1978. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages against Dr. Pardeep Mathur defendant No. I as well as against Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, defendant No. 2 for causing death to his wife by not treating her properly and for poor nursing. According to plaintiff Smt. Gayatri Devi was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital because she was under the treatment of defendant No. 1. Because of the callous attitude and negligent mannen of treatment by Dr. Pradeep Mathur and of the Hospital staff it hasten the death of his wife. Bad nursing and treatment caused her death. Her death has caused great shock to the plaintiff. He underwent physical and mental torture when his wife was treated casually at the hands of the defendants. By not providing her proper care and treatment it made platiff suffer physical and mental agony. Due to her death plaintiff has been deprived of the company of his wife. Her death was due to mismanagement in treatment and due to poor nursing.
( 3 ) TO appreciate the grievances of the plaintiff the facts are very relevant. Those are that Smt. Gayatri Devi started having general weakness in the last week of. Tune, 1978. On 1st. July. 1978. plaintiff on the recommendation of a common friend took her for treatment to Dr. Pradeep Mathur at defendant No. 2 hospital. It is further the case of the plaintiff that patient s previous history rcgarding Hood pressure and kidnev involvement and the treatment taken by her at Safdariung Hospital were explained to Dr. Pradeep Mathur. It was also made clear to Dr. Pradeep Mathur that by observing due precautions and care as prescribed earlier by Dr. Chug of Sufdarjung Hospital this ailment had been kept under control. It was only due to general weekness and not passing urine that. he brought her to him. According to plaintiff Dr. Pradeep Mathur after examining his wife admilted her as an indoor patient on 1st July, 1978. She remained under Dr. Piadeep Mathur s treatment till 21st July, 1978. On 21st July, 1978 Dr. Pradeep Matur discharged her. He assured that he would be attending upon her at her residence. Hence after being discharged she still remained under the treatment of Dr. Pradeep Mathur at her residence. He attended upon her at her residence from 21st July, 1978 to 9th August, 1978. On the advise of Dr. Pradeep Mathur, she was again admitted in the hospital on 9th August, 1978 where she remained till 17th August, 1978. On which date doctor discharged her without plaintiff s consent. At the time of her first admission on 1st July, 1978 Dr. Mathur had been informed that Smt. Gayatri Devi was a patient of kidney disease. Even on examination Dr. Mathur assessed her to be a patient of kidney disease. After conducting the test on her it was found that she was not all that serious and her general condition would improve. However. Dr. Mathur inspite of being aware of her kidney ailment neglected in discharging his duties because during the entire period from 1st July, 1978 to 21st July, 1978, he neither consulted nor availed the services of a nephrologist nor trea
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
