IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 611 of 1999
Decided On : 01-04-2023
Negligence - Hospital Premises - Sec. 96 of CPC - [Sec. 96 of CPC] - The court discussed the negligence of the hospital in maintaining a soak pit without proper protection, leading to the death of a child. The presence of the soak pit and lack of fencing were key points in the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for damages due to the death of their child in a soak pit constructed in a government hospital premises. The hospital staff denied the allegations, stating that it was the duty of the parents to look after their child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved the presence of the soak pit in the hospital premises and the lack of protection around it, leading to the accidental death of the child. The Trial Court decreed the suit and awarded damages, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
Issues: The main issue was the negligence of the hospital in maintaining the premises, leading to the death of the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of the soak pit, lack of fencing, and the duty of the hospital to ensure safety on its premises were crucial in deciding the case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. This First Appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 17/4/1999 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat in C.S .No. 5B of 1999.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for damages to the tune of Rs.50, 000.00 on account of death of their 1 1/2 year old son due to drowning in a soakpit constructed in the premises of Government Hospital, Waraseoni. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no.1 is working on the post of Gatekeeper whereas the plaintiff no. 2 is a Bidi Labour. The plaintiff no.1 was medically sick, therefore, he went to Distt. Hospital, Waraseoni, along with plaintiff no.2 and his 1 1/2 years old son. The plaintiff no.1 was admitted in the hospital. The son of the plaintiffs went missing and ultimately his dead body was found in the soakpit which was filled with water and was open without any protection. The soakpit was constructed in the hospital premises sometimes in the year 1988 by the PWD for stopping the leakage of water from Water overhead tank. Accordingly, the suit was filed for damages to the tune of Rs.50, 000.00.
3. The defendants no. 2 and 3 i.e., Chief Medical Officer, and Incharge Doctor of Distt. Hospital Waraseoni filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. In additional pleadings, it was pleaded that whenever the patients are admitted in the hospital, then they and their attendants are always advised not to bring small kids in the hospital. It was denied for want of knowledge as to whether the plaintiff no.1 had come to hospital on 27/7/1988 for his treatment or not. No one in the hospital had seen the child in alive condition. The factum of death due to drowning in soakpit was denied. However, it was admitted that a soakpit was constructed by the PWD and it was also admitted that due to heavy rains the soakpit had collapsed. It was further pleaded that it was the duty of the plaintiffs to look after their child.
4. The defendants no. 1, 4, and 5 filed their written statement and also denied the plaint averments. In additional pleadings it was accepted that the PWD had constructed a soakpit and due to heavy rains, it had collapsed. The entry of small kids in the hospital is banned. The factum of death of the deceased child was also denied.
5. The plaintiffs examined Namdeo (P.W.1), Babu Miyan (P.W.2), Shikharchand (P.W.3), Mukesh (P.W.4), Kishore Kumar (P.W.5), Dharabai (P.W.6), Head Constable Bhanupratap (P.W.7). The defendants examined N.R. Bisen, Dresser posted in Civil Hospital Waraseoni (D.W.1), T.K.K. Mishra (D.W.2), Dr. P.C. Rawat (D.W.3).
6. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree has decreed the suit and has awarded Rs.35, 000.00 towards damages.
7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellants that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that any child had died in the hospital due to drowning in the soak pit and even otherwise, it is the duty of the parents to keep a watch over their own child.
8. None appears for the respondents though represented.
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.
10. The defendants in their written statement had specifically admitted that a soak pit was constructed by the PWD and due to heavy rains, the soak pit had collapsed. Therefore, the presence of soak pit in the hospital premises is undisputed.
11. T.K.K. Mishra (D.W.2) has admitted in this crossexamination that after took over the charge, he was informed by his predecessor, that a child had died in the Government Hospital. Dr. P.C. Rawat (D.W.3) has also admitted that there is a water tank and a soak pit. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a soakpit in the hospital premises.
12. Mukesh (P.W.4) and Dharabai (P.W.6) have specifically stated that there was no protection around the soak pit and it was filled with water. Namdeo
The duty of a hospital to maintain a safe environment on its premises and the liability for negligence in ensuring the safety of individuals on the premises.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of care owed by State authorities to provide a safe and secure environment for children, and the liability of the State for reparation of ....
Negligence requires defendants to secure potentially dangerous situations, as established by the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The duty of care and liability for negligence arise when a party's inaction leads to foreseeable harm, reaffirming the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Recklessness of accused/applicant has claimed one blooming life, but at same time being mindful of interest of justice, Court thinks it proper to reduce sentence imposed on him to period already unde....
Where there is a duty to care and there is a breach of this duty resulting in loss to consumer, it will entail damages.
The court clarified that special damages can be proven through credible testimony, not solely by documentary evidence, and overruled previous decisions regarding the applicability of the volenti non ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.