Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1384 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for damages alleging medical negligence filed by the young man - any injury was caused to the plaintiff or not - person negligent - quantum and the person liable to pay the compensation. Whether the plaintiff pleaded the material facts to constitute negligence? - HELD THAT:- Order 6 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading, relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. As observed by Courts, far too often, pleadings are to be interpreted not with formalistic rigour but with the full awareness of the legal literacy levels of the litigants and also the nature of the case - The purpose of pleadings is to intimate the opposite party about the nature of the case that is set up against him. The pleadings in the plaint, in the instant case, constitute sufficient material pleading, to put the defendants in the knowledge of the case of the plaintiff. The point is answered accordingly. Whether Ext. B1 is admissible in evidence? - HELD THAT:- There are four stages before a Court of law can rely upon a document. They are (i) marking of a document, (ii) admissibility of a document, (iii) proof of contents of the document, and (iv) evaluation of the document. Reliance upon a document can be made by the court only if all the above four stages are complied with or satisfied. By the mere marking of a document, it does not become admissible in evidence. Further, the marking of a document and being admissible in evidence, will still not render the contents of a document as 'proved'. When a document, admissible in evidence, is marked, still to be relied upon by the courts, its contents will have to be proved. For the contents of a document to have a probative value, the person who wrote the contents or is aware of the contents and its veracity must be invited to give evidence about it - The finding of the learned Sub Judge, that Ext. B1 is inadmissible in evidence, is correct and justified in the circumstances and therefore, warrants no interference. Whether the defendants were negligent during the surgery resulting in injury to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages? - HELD THAT:- It may be of relevance to refer to Ext. B1(a) which is the photocopy of the consent given by the plaintiff for the surgery. Even though the said document has many of the flaws that could be attributed to Ext. B1, still, since the signature in Ext. B1(a) is admitted, the same is looked into for the limited purpose of identifying the possible mishaps which were in contemplation for which consent was given. In none of the possible outcomes referred to in Ext. B1(a), is there a complication referred to or mentioned, of the nature that occurred to the plaintiff. The disability now suffered by the plaintiff is not seen referred to as an expected complication from a procedure of this nature. This also indicates that it is not a normal complication that has occurred to the plaintiff. Thus by the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitor, the defendants alone could have answered or explained the allegation of negligence. In the nature of the evidence adduced, the defendants have failed to prove the absence of negligence. The findings of the learned Sub Judge regarding the negligence of the defendants was perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and calls for no interference in this appeal. Hence the point is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Whether the damages awarded by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram, require interference, If so to what extent? - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel for the appellant had fairly submitted that the appellants are not challenging the quantum of damages awarded. Having stated so, in the absence of any challenge against the quantum of damages awarded, the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
|