Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President and Kanwal Inder, Member
SUBHASH CHANDER TREHAN - Appellant
Versus
MANGLA TELANG (DR.) AND ORS. - Respondents
Complaint No. CC-10/265
Decided on : 12-01-2011
The legal principle established is that only the legal heir under the Hindu Law can maintain a petition in cases of medical negligence resulting in death.
Headnote:
Legal Heir - Medical Negligence - The court found the petition unmaintainable by the present complainant as he was not the legal heir under the Hindu Law, and consequently dismissed the case.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged medical negligence leading to the untimely death of his daughter and sought compensation from the doctors and hospital involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition unmaintainable by the present complainant as he was not the legal heir under the Hindu Law, and consequently dismissed the case.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition by the complainant as the legal heir.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, being the father, was not the legal heir under the Hindu Law, and therefore could not maintain the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the case on the ground of the petition being unmaintainable by the present complainant.
ORDER
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral)- The complainant who is the father of deceased Smt. Nidhi, has come up with this complaint before this Commission alleging that she was under the treatment of OP-1 Dr. Mangla Telang, owner of Telang Clinic and OP-2 Smt. Kiran Bhasin for IVF treatment, and lost her life due to sheer negligence of these doctors. The complainant has alleged that OP-3, Director/Chairman, Kailash Hospital and Heart Institute H-33, Sector 27, Noida is also hand in gloves with OP-2, and tried to shield OPs-1 and 2 for their negligent acts. The complainant has impleaded Chairman, Medical Council as a proforma respondent. The complainant has made the following prayers in his complaint:
(i) To pay an amount of Rs. 42 lacs (i.e. 32 + 10) lacs to complainant for causing the untimely death of his daughter and thereby causing pain, agony, sorrow, anguish, trauma, financial loss to the complainant and his entire family.
(ii) That the OP No. 3 may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5 lacs to complainant for being privy to the criminal intent of OP Nos. 1 and 2 to suppress the cause of death of complainant's daughter.
(iii) That the OP No. 4 may be directed to cancel the licence of OP Nos. l and 2 and also to pass an order of the closure of the clinic/hospital of OP No. 1.
2. We have heard the complainant in person at the preliminary stage of admission.
3. The father is neither the legal heir under the Hindu Law and obviously cannot be the representative. The heir of the deceased under the Hindu Law is the husband who can maintain any such petition. The only answer to this proposition the complainant gave is that, the husband has remarried, but that will not disentitle the husband under law, being an heir of his deceased wife. No other argument could be advanced by the complainant, and no reference was made to any case law in this regard.
4. We, therefore, find the petition unmaintainable by the present complainant, and the same is consequently dismissed in limine on this ground.
5. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
