The judgment establishes the principle that medical practitioners must exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care, and they may be held liable for negligence if their conduct falls below that of a reasonable competent doctor.

1. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 1st January, 2002 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Indore dismissing the Civil Suit No.43B/99.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,85,000/on account of the death of her son Santosh Kumar Morya due to the alleged negligence on the part of the respondents.

3. The case of the appellant(plaintiff) is that her son aged about 24 years, in the year 1993, was complaining about stomach pain, therefore, initially preliminary treatment was given by the respondent no.2 Dr. Kailash Chandra Patel and thereafter he was admitted in the Shraddha hospital. Santosh was operated for appendix by the respondents Dr. Pramod Sharma, Kailash Chandra Patel and Dr. H.K. Gupta, without the consent of the appellant or her husband. The consent was subsequently obtained by force. Santosh was discharged on 23.11.1993 from the hospital but on 24.11.1993 his condition became serious, therefore, he was shown to Dr. Kailash Chandra Patel, who treated him from 24.11.1993 to 26.11.1993. On 26.11.1993 when condition of Santosh deteriorated, the respondent no.2 Dr. Kailash Chandra Patel got him admitted in Charak Hospital, where again the doctors treated him negligently resulting into his death on 27.11.1993. It was alleged that the respondent no.2 Dr. Kailash Chandra Patel was not having MBBS degree yet he had treated Santosh and operated him. It was further alleged that Santosh was suffering from malaria still the operation was performed and that the respondent no.4 Dr. Prashant Mishra prepared the forged blood report on 28.11.1993 to save the other respondents.

4. Suit was opposed by the respondents. Respondents no.1 and 4 took the plea that Santosh was unwell since 16.11.1993. The blood report was obtained on 18.11.1993 and with the consent of the father of Santosh, he was operated for appendix and after the recovery he was discharged on 23.11.1993.

5. Respondent no.2 Dr. Kailash Chandra Patel also opposed the suit taking the plea that the suit was barred by time and there was defect of nonjoinder of party. He took the defence that he had not participated in the operation and that Santosh was discharged after full recovery. On 24.11.1993 on examination of Santosh, he had advised blood test and when malaria was diagnosed, he had advised hospitalization but in spite of his advice the family members of Santosh did not admit him in the hospital and continued his treatment at home and finally admitted him in the hospital on 26.11.1993, when he became very serious.

6. Respondent no.3 Dr. H.K. Gupta took the plea that he had only given anesthesia during the operation and had not committed any negligence in this regard.

7. Respondent no.5 Dr. Sanjay Jain and respondent no.7 Charak Hospital Pvt. Ltd. also opposed the claim of the appellant taking the plea that Santosh was treated as per the advice of the experts and he died on 27.11.1993 on account of the medical complications, for which respondents no.5 & 7 are not responsible. According to these respondents, water had deposited in the stomach of Santosh and he was suffering from falciparum malaria and acute jaundice and his liver was not functioning, which was his cause of death.

8. Respondent no.6 Dr. C.L. Gurjar, Manager Shraddha Cooperative Hospital, took the plea that Santosh was properly treated by the concerned doctors and there was no negligence on the part of the hospital staff. He took the further plea that Shraddha hospital had later gone into liquidation and liquidator was appointed and all the papers were seized by the liquidator, therefore, liquidator is a necessary party.

9. Trial Court by the impugned judgment found that the respondent no.1 Dr. Pramod Sharma, respondent no.2 Dr. Kailash Chandra Patel, respondent no.3 Dr. H.K. Gupta and Dr. Gurjar were negligent in treatment of Santosh. The trial Court also found that the respondent no.4