Delhi District Court
Smt. Pinky W/O Sh. Shyam Singh vs The Medical Superintendent on 10 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI :
ADJ (3) NORTH: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
In re :
Suit No. 100/2010 (Old No. 74/09)
Unique Case ID No. 02401C5002432004
In the matter of:
Smt. Pinky W/o Sh. Shyam Singh
R/o H. No. E275, Mangol Puri,
Delhi110085.
Also at :
E 496, Mangolpuri,
Delhi. ....Plaintiff
VS.
1. The Medical Superintendent
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Mangol Puri, Delhi83.
2. Dr. Kadam, Family Welfare,
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Mangol Puri, Delhi83.
3. Delhi Government (Delhi)
Secretary (Health), Delhi Government C.C. Office,
Shyam Nath Marg, Delhi06.
........Defendants
Date of filing of the suit : 21.01.2004
Date of reservation for judgment : 29.07.2010
Date of judgment : 10.08.2010
CS No. 100/10 page no. 1/18
SUIT IN FORMA PAUPERIS U/o XXXVII RULE 1 OF CPC CLAIMING THE
COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES FOR THE NEGLIGENCE
APPEARANCE:
Sh. Deepak Tyagi counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Subhash Chander counsel for defendants
JUDGMENT
1. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff Smt. Pinky against the Defendants for claiming compensation and damages on account for the negligence, of the defendant no. 2, the suit having been filed by the plaintiff u/o 33 rule 1 CPC in Forma Pauperis.
2. The facts, in brief, as stated, in the plaint are that the plaintiff Smt. Pinky is a housewife, blessed with two children i.e one boy (aged 8 years) and one girl (aged 11 years). The husband of the plaintiff is a labourer, earning Rs.2500/ p.m, hardly able to make the ends meet. In the month of April, 2003 the plaintiff found that she was pregnant. Since from the meager earnings of the husband of the plaintiff, the basic necessities of the family could be fullfilled with great difficulty, the plaintiff did not wish to give birth to a third child. On 26.04.2003, the plaintiff approached defendant no.1 i.e Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, to get the unwanted baby aborted and also got the sterilization operation conducted. On the same day, the defendant no.1 issued an OPD Card bearing CS No. 100/10 page no. 2/18 registration no. 69204 in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was asked to report for a regular check up. Defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam, who was on duty, asked the plaintiff to come on 07.05.2003, so that the MTP and the Family Planning/Nasbandi operation could be performed on the plaintiff. On 07.05.2003 the MTP/abortion and Family Planning/Nasbandi operation was conducted by defendant no.2 upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also issued a Family Planning certificate bearing no. 316033 and OT registration no. 5165 dated 07.05.2003. On the same date i.e. 07.05.2003 the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital and defendant no.1 issued a discharge slip bearing CR No.5165 dated 07.05.2003 to the plaintiff.
3. On 22.06.2003, the plaintiff came to know that she was still 18 weeks pregnant as the MTP and the Sterilization/Nasbandi was not conducted properly by defendant no.2, who was on duty at the hospital i.e defendant no.1. The plaintiff further came to know that it would be a great risk for the plaintiff as well as for the unborn child, if she got the baby aborted, at this late stage and therefore, she had no other option left with her but to continue with the pregnancy of the unwanted third child.
4. On 09.12.2003, the plaintiff gave birth to a female child and the delivery was conducted in MTY Home, ABlock, Mangolpuri, Delhi, as the plaintiff had an apprehension that defendant no.1 and 2, may cause serious injury to the plaintiff and the baby during delivery. Defendant no.1 and 2, on a number of occasions, threatened the plaintiff and her husband with dire consequences, if a suit was filed against them. It was stated that the plaintiff and her husband had spent a huge CS No. 100/10 page no. 3/18 amount on delivery, medicines and special diet of the female child. They had also suffered mental agony, harassment and torture, due to the negligence on the part of the defendant no.1 and 2, as the plaintiff and her husband had been forced to bear the unbearable and unwanted expenses of the pregnancy and the future expense on raising and marriage of the third female child. It was further stated that the plaintiff is therefore, entitled to recover the damages from the defendant no.1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
5. A legal demand notice dated 12.09.2003 was served by the plaintiff on all the defendants, through registered post and UPC, demanding the compensation of Rs. Six Lacs for the negligence on the part of defendant no.1 and 2 and for the unbearable expenses, which the plaintiff would have to bear in future for the sustainance, maintenance, education and the marriage of the third female child. However, the defendants failed to reply the said legal demand notice nor has any compensation been paid.
6. It was stated that the cause of action arose on 07.05.2003 when the MTP and the Family Planning/Nasbandi was conducted negligently by defendant no.1 and 2. It further arose on 09.12.2003 when the plaintiff gave birth to a female child in MTY Home, Mangolpuri and the cause of action was still continuing as the compensation/damages had never been paid by the defendants till date. Hence, the present suit for compensation/damages of Rs. Six Lacs has been filed and since the plaintiff is not in a position to pay the Court Fee on the said amount, a separate application u/o 33 rule 1 CPC was filed by the plaintiff, seeking leave of the Court to present the suit in Forma Pauperis. It was therefore, prayed that a CS No. 100/10 page no. 4/18 decree of Rs. Six Lacs be passed in favour of the plaintiff, in the form of compensation and the costs of the suit be also awarded.
7. WS was filed jointly on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2, wherein certain preliminary objections, about the suit being bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and there being no cause of action, were taken and it was also stated that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands.
8. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff Pinky was medically examined in the Gynecology OPD on 08.04.2003 vide OPD registration no. 69204. It was stated that he LMP was 06.03.2003 and the pregnancy test was found to be positive and since she opted for the MTP with CoperT insertion on 19.04.2003, she was given a date for operation on 06.05.2003. It was further stated that the plaintiff might have visited the OPD again on 26.04.2003 and may have been given a date for MTP & Tubectomy on compassionate ground, without registration in the OPD. It was admitted that the OPD Card of the plaintiff was issued on 08.04.2003. It was also admitted that as per the discharge slip, the plaintiff was operated upon on 07.05.2003, after due counseling and taking consent for MTP and Sterilization. The plaintiff coming to know on 22.06.2003 that her pregnancy was still continuing was not refuted, but it was stated that the plaintiff did not report for her follow up treatment, two weeks after the operation, as advised at the time of discharge.
9. It was also stated that the patients are counseled regarding the success and failure of the operation before the operation is conducted and are also told that in the eventuality of the failure of the operation, it was not advisable to continue with CS No. 100/10 page no. 5/18 the pregnancy, as there be congenital birth defects in the baby. It was further stated that before the operation, the patients are advised, about the risk involved and also advised to report for check up after two weeks to the nearest health center to detect any complication of operation and any continuance of pregnancy after the operation and therefore, it was in the knowledge of the plaintiff, before hand, that there was a small risk, of the failure of the operation. It was denied that the plaintiff or her husband were ever threatened with dire consequences, in case, they filed a suit. It was further stated that the defendants were providing best medical services through highly qualified and experienced staff, in public interest and free of cost. It was denied that any negligence was conducted by defendant no.1 and 2. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
10. Replication to the WS was filed by the plaintiff, wherein the assertions made in the plaint were reiterated, but it was denied that the plaintiff was eve counseled by the defendants regarding the complications, success and failure of the operation, before the operation. Rather, she abided by all the instructions given at the time of discharge and when she visited the hospital on 20.05.2003 as mentioned in the discharge slip, the doctor assured her, that both the operations conducted upon her were successful and there was no complication of any kind and that she did not any need to visit the hospital again. It was further stated that when she missed her menstrual period in June, 2003, she rushed to the nearest doctor, who did not entertain her properly and advised her to go to the hospital, where her operation had been performed. When the plaintiff visited the hospital, the doctor assured her that some times menstrual periods get disturbed and so there was no need to panic and it was only when the plaintiff fell sick on 22.07.2005 that CS No. 100/10 page no. 6/18 she rushed to the hospital again, where her ultrasound was done that it was revealed that she was again pregnant. It was once again reiterated that she had been subjected to gross negligence at the hands f the defendants, which led to the birth of her third female child and hence, her suit for damages/compensation be decreed with costs.
11. Since the suit was accompanied with an application u/o 33 Rule 1 CPC having been filed in Forma Pauperis, report of the SDM concerned was called for by the Court and plaintiff as well as her husband were both examined on oath in respect to the financial status of the plaintiff. From the report of the SDM concerned, and the statement of the plaintiff, since it was established that the plaintiff had no independent source of income, and her husband was only working as a Labourer, earning only Rs.2500/ p.m, out of which Rs.1600/ was being paid as rent, it was held that the plaintiff did not have the sufficient means to pay the Court Fee and therefore, she was permitted to sue as an indigent person by the Predecessor of this Court vide his order dated 02.06.2005.
12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 19.07.2005:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 6,00,000/ in the form of compensation against the defendant?OPP
2. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder or misjoinder of the parties?OPD
3. Whether there is no cause of action for filing of the suit?OPD
4. Relief.
13. To support her claim, the plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1 and CS No. 100/10 page no. 7/18 deposed on an affidavit, which she proved as Exh. PW1/1. She testified on oath the averments made in her suit. She brought on record the OPD Card bearing registration no. 69204 as Exh. PW1/A, certificate bearing no. 316033 as Exh. PW1/B, OT registration card bearing no. 5165 dated 07.05.2003 as Exh. PW1/C, the discharge slip bearing CR no. 5165 dated 07.05.2003 as Exh. PW1/D, the discharge slip of MTY Home, Mangolpuri, Delhi as Exh. PW1/E, the legal demand notice dated 12.09.2003 as Exh. PW1/F, the UPC as Exh. PW1/G and the AD Card showing the service of the legal demand notice upon the defendant no.1 and 3 as Exh. PW1/H. In her crossexamination, she stated that in the month of April, 2003, she had one month pregnancy and that she received Rs.200/ at the time of MTP. She admitted that she did not pay anything to the hospital towards the expenses of MTP, but denied that she had filed a false suit, only in order to, extract money from the defendants.
14. Sh. Shyam Singh, husband of the plaintiff entered the witness box as PW2 and deposed on an affidavit, which he proved as Exh. PW2/A. He corroborated the testimony of PW1 on all material particulars, testifying on oath the assertions made by the plaintiff in the plaint.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he had not made any complaint to the higher authorities against the doctor, as he had no knowledge about any procedure. He further stated that the plaintiff was operated upon by the doctor concerned and discharged on the same day alongwith the certificate, but denied that the plaintiff did not follow the instructions given by the doctor. CS No. 100/10 page no. 8/18
15. After close of PE, Defendant no. 2 Dr. V.K. Kadam, Sr. Specialist (Gynecological Department) entered the witness box on behalf of the defendants as DW1 and deposed on an affidavit, which he proved as Exh. DW1/A. He testified on oath that the plaintiff was given the best medical treatment, without charging any fee, in the public interest, but the plaintiff did not abide with the instructions, given at the time of operation, for the postoperation period and also did not turn up for follow up check up. He testified on oath all the averments made in the WS, admitting that the MTP/sterilization was conducted upon the plaintiff on 07.05.2003 and the necessary certificate, discharge slip were issued to the plaintiff, but that she had been cautioned before the operation that there were chances of operation not being successful and there was a risk of continuance of pregnancy after the operation and that she had to visit the nearby health center, if she missed her menstrual period, after the operation. He deposed that the hospital had taken due care and counseled the plaintiff and that the allegations of the negligence, were false and baseless and that the defendants were not liable to pay any damages. He brought on record the copy of the OPD slip of the plaintiff dated 08.04.2003 as Exh. DW1/1, but admitted in his crossexamination that Exh. DW1/1 was not signed by him nor prepared by him, nor did he have any personal knowledge about the card. He further stated that he did not know whether he had conducted the operation upon the plaintiff, but stated that if his name was written on the card he might have done so. However, he denied that he was negligent while conducting the operation. He denied that he had left the operation in between and committed negligence and had completed the half operation on 06.05.2003 and half one on 07.05.2003.
16. I have heard Sh. Deepak Tyagi counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Subhash CS No. 100/10 page no. 9/18 Chander counsel for defendants. I have also perused the record, scrutinized the evidence adduced and have gone through the relevant case law and my issuewise findings are as follows: : ISSUE No. 2 & 3
2. "Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder or misjoinder of the parties?"OPD
3. "Whether there is no cause of action for filing of the suit?" OPD
17. The onus to prove both the issues was on the defendants. However, the defendants did not lead any substantive evidence to discharge the onus, which was placed upon them to show that the suit filed by the plaintiff, was bad for nonjoinder or misjoinder of the parties or that there was no cause of action for filing of the instant suit. On the contrary, from the own admissions of defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam, who was examined as DW1, was the Dr. concerned, who had performed the MTP/sterilization operation upon the plaintiff on 07.05.2002, pursuant to which the necessary certificate of the operation Exh. PW1/B was also issued by the hospital to the plaintiff. Unrefutably, defendant no.2 was working in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, which was a Government Hospital, being operated by the Government of NCT of Delhi and therefore, defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam, the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, through the Medical Superintendent and the Delhi Government, through the Secretary Health have been rightly arrayed as defendants and there is neither any misjoinder or nonjoinder of the necessary parties. If there was any such nonjoinder or misjoinder, the defendants have not thrown any light upon the same.
CS No. 100/10 page no. 10/18
18. As far as the cause of action is concerned, it is an admitted fact by DW1 that he had conducted the operation and the certificate was issued. Thereafter, the plaintiff has established that in the month of July, 2003 she found that her pregnancy was yet continuing and that the MTP operation was unsuccessful, which definitely gives rise to the cause of action for filing of the present suit. This assertion on behalf of the plaintiff was unrebutted by the defendants either overtly or obliquely. Therefore, both the legal issues, that were emphasized upon by the defendants in their written statement, could not be substantiated by them by leading any concrete evidence. Both the issues are accordingly, decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.1: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. Six lacs in the form of compensation against the defendant?"OPP
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2, which was duly corroborated by the testimony of DW1 Dr. Kadam, it is established that the plaintiff had approached the Gynecological OPD in the Hospital (defendant no.1) on 08.04.2003 vide OPD card bearing no. 69204 and her pregnancy test was found to be positive. It is undisputed that the plaintiff was medically examined by Dr. Kadam (defendant no.2) and the plaintiff opted for her MTP (abortion) and sterilization operation, which was later conducted on 07.05.2003. The OPD card bearing no. 69204, Exh. PW1/A has been placed on record in original by the plaintiff and has been admitted by the defendants. The discharge slip bearing CR No. 5165 in the name of the plaintiff Exh. PW1/D shows that the plaintiff was admitted in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangole CS No. 100/10 page no. 11/18 Puri, Delhi on 07.05.2003 and was discharged on the same day, after she was operated upon. The MTP operation was done on 07.05.2003 itself under local anesthesia. The said document is also admitted by the defendants during the course of admission/denial of the documents, which was done on behalf of the defendants by the counsel on 19.07.2005 in the Court. The certificate of sterilization Exh. PW1/B also dated 07.05.2003 issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital in the name of the plaintiff Pinky, clearly establishes that the plaintiff underwent Tubectomy operation (sterilization) in the hospital.
20. Therefore, from the admitted documents, which are not disputed by the defendants, it is established that the abortion and the sterilization operation was conducted at the hospital by defendant no.2 upon the plaintiff. Since the operation was found successful, she was discharged on the same day with certain recommendations and was also advised for follow up treatment in the Gynecological OPD. The defence that has been raised on behalf of the defendants is that, at the time of discharge, the plaintiff was advised, that in the eventuality of the plaintiff, not getting her menstrual cycle in the next month, she was to approach the nearest health center and this advise is indeed written in Hindi on the discharge slip Exh. PW1/D. It was the testimony of PW1, that as per advice, she had visited the hospital, after two weeks of the operation, when defendant no.2 had medically examined her, removed the stitches and had told her that the operation had been successful and she was given Rs.200/ for going in for Family Planning. It is to be noted that in respect to this assertion, which was made in para no.10 of the affidavit of PW1, there was no crossexamination controverting the said assertion. Rather in the crossexamination, the specific date i.e 20.05.2003 was also mentioned by the CS No. 100/10 page no. 12/18 plaintiff in which respect no suggestion to the contrary was given on behalf of the defendants. The admitted OPD Card Exh. PW1/A does have a date of 13.05.2003 mentioned which reveals that the plaintiff did visit the OPD after the operation for her check up, but apparently, even after conducting the medical examination, defendant no.2 did not find any thing amiss.
21. The defence of the defendants that the plaintiff had already been cautioned about the chances of the MTP and sterilization operation being unsuccessful, was laid emphasis upon, but no such words of caution find any mention either in the certificate of sterilization or the discharge slip, both dated 07.05.2003, which were issued to the plaintiff by the defendant/hospital. If any such counseling had been done and the plaintiff or her husband had been duly cautioned, that the operation could be unsuccessful and that the pregnancy would be continuing, even after the MTP operation was conducted, then this kind of a disclaimer, would surely have been contained in any of the consent forms, which the plaintiff or her husband would have been asked to sign at the hospital. No such consent forms have been brought on record nor any other document, which would show that the possibility of an unsuccessful MTP operation and the sterilization operation was brought into the knowledge of the plaintiff. Furthermore, had this been the case, and there was any risk involved about the nonsuccess of the MTP operation, then when the plaintiff had visited the hospital on 13.05.2003 and 20.05.2003, as the case may be, defendant no.2 was required to be vigilant enough to first conduct the pregnancy test upon the plaintiff, so as to ensure the success or the nonsuccess of the MTP operation. The very fact that he did not apparently do so, but assured the plaintiff about the success of both the operations, is a clear CS No. 100/10 page no. 13/18 pointer towards the negligence on the part of the defendant no.2, who conducted the operation and the subsequent medical check up on the plaintiff.
22. It may also be noted that advise or the prescription for the medicines, that are made at the time of discharge, are cautionary and curative, but also no such advise that, if not heeded to, would bring about fatal or irreversible consequences, or perhaps undo the entire medical treatment, which the patient ha been subjected to. From the caution and the advise, that was given on the discharge slip, at the time of discharge, there is no inkling that Dr. concerned was in any doubt, about the nonsuccess of the MTP operation. Rather the advise to the plaintiff that in case of an irregular or a miss menstrual period, she was to approach the nearest health center, was more of a cautionary advise, in respect of any possible complication or infection. It is not refuted or controverted that the plaintiff did find that her pregnancy, which she had sought to be aborted, was yet continuing and she did infact give birth to a baby girl in MTY Home, ABlock, Mangole Puri, Delhi, as revealed from the discharge slip, on 09.12.2003, unrefutably, the baby being the one which was sought to be aborted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangole Puri, Delhi vide MTP operation. The plaintiff has therefore, established that defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam, carried out the MTP operation negligently and even though operation was not successful, the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on the same day, i.e 07.05.2003 itself after being given the certificate about the success of the operation. The defendant no.2 continued to be negligent even when the plaintiff reported in the Gynecological OPD, subsequent to the operation on 13.05.2003 and 20.05.2003 for follow up check up and failed to diagnose her continuing pregnancy and the MTP operation being a nonsuccess. CS No. 100/10 page no. 14/18
23. The plaintiff has filed the instant case in Forma Pauperis and the financial status of the plaintiff and her husband has been established on record, to be in the income group of Rs.2500/ p.m, out of which Rs. 600/ p.m is being given as rent, the report of the SDM concerned confirming it. The plaintiff and her husband were in no financial condition to support and maintain another child, which was the reason that the plaintiff had approached the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for the MTP (abortion) and her sterilization operation which was conducted by defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam on 07.05.2003, the negligence on the part of the defendant no.2 resulted in an unsuccessful MTP operation upon the plaintiff, which was though, given a colour of being successful by defendant no.2. The diagnosis of the continuing pregnancy was done in July, 2003, which was late for termination of pregnancy and therefore, the plaintiff had to continue with the pregnancy and bring an unwanted third female child in the world, whom they were not in a financial position to support and maintain.
24. No doubt, the plaintiff was not burdened with any expenditure either in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, at the time when she went for MTP/sterilization operation or later at the MTY Home, where the delivery was eventually affected, but the birth of a child, does not just bring about expenditure at the time of birth, which the plaintiff was able to avoid. The birth of a child brings about future expenses for the child's food, clothing, education, medical facilities and then her marriage. The plaintiff, not being in an appropriate financial condition to bear all these expenses, had approached the hospital for termination of the pregnancy, but due to the negligence of defendant no.2, would now be burdened with all the aforesaid CS No. 100/10 page no. 15/18 expenses and therefore, she needs to be suitably compensated for the said expenses.
25. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation. However, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of Rs. Six lcas as compensation/damages, but has not delineated on what basis, the said amount has been mentioned in the plaint. No evidence has also been led by the plaintiff on the quantum of damages to be avoided, nor any list of the probable expenses likely to be incurred upon the third child, have been detailed in the testimony of the plaintiff. Vide the testimony of PW1 and PW2, coupled with the report dated 01.06.2005 of the SDM concerned and thereafter vide the orders of the Predecessor of this Court dated 02.06.2005, the monthly income of the plaintiff and her husband jointly has been assessed and accepted to be Rs.2500/ p.m. It was accepted that he was paying the rent of Rs.600/ p.m. Therefore, the plaintiff would now be left with Rs. 1900/ for the maintenance of the entire family, which now comprises of the plaintiff, her husband and three children.
26. Considering that the husband of the plaintiff, being the only earning member would require little more amount for his traveling and other personal th expenses, it can be reasonable to presume that 2/5 of his income, the plaintiff's husband would require for himself while 1/5th each would be spent upon the remaining family members including the plaintiff and the children. Therefore, the plaintiff would be spending around Rs.380/ p.m. upon one child and plaintiff. Accordingly, the third child of the plaintiff, who has come into the world due to the sheer negligence of the defendant no.2, would also require a minimum of Rs.380/ CS No. 100/10 page no. 16/18 p.m for her maintenance and Rs. 380/ X 12 = Rs. 4560/, rounded off to Rs. 4600/ annually. The said amount would be required atleast till the time the child becomes a majour and therefore, the total amount required for the maintenance of the third child, till she attained the age of majority, would be Rs. 82,800/, rounded off to Rs.83,000/. She would also required atleast Rs. 7000/ for the basic education, even if, the child is sent to a Government School, where tuition fee would be free. It would also be reasonable to presume that alteast a sum of Rs. 60,000/ would be required by the plaintiff for the marriage of the said third child.
27. Accordingly, it is held, in view of my above discussion, that the plaintiff is entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 83,000/ + Rs.7000/ + Rs. 60,000/ = Rs. 1,50,000/ to the plaintiff as compensation/damages. Issue no.1 is accordingly, decided partially, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. RELIEF:
28. In view of my above discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/. She shall also be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum on the decreetal amount w.e.f today i.e 10.08.2010, (the date of order) till realization.
29. Defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam, is a tortfeasor, who is liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and defendant no.3 Govt. of NCT of Delhi being the employers of the defendant no.2, shall be vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by defendant no.2, during the course of his employment with defendant no.1 and CS No. 100/10 page no. 17/18 defendant no.3. Hence, defendant no. 1,2 and 3 shall be jointly as well as severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff.
30. Since the suit has been filed u/o 33 rule 1CPC in Forma Pauperis, the Court fee, to be paid by the plaintiff on the compensation amount awarded, shall be the first charge upon the decree at the time of its execution/realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 10th day of August 2010 (SEEMA MAINI) ADJ3 (NORTH):DELHI CS No. 100/10 page no. 18/18 Suit No. 100/10 10.08.2010 Present: Sh. Deepak Tyagi counsel for plaintiff Sh. Subhash Chander counsel for defendants Vide my separate Judgment announced in open Court, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/. The plaintiff is entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/. She shall also be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum on the decreetal amount w.e.f today i.e 10.08.2010, (the date of order) till realization.
Defendant no.2 Dr. Kadam, is a tortfeasor, who is liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and defendant no.3 Govt. of NCT of Delhi being the employers of the defendant no.2, shall be vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by defendant no.2, during the course of his employment with defendant no.1 and defendant no.3. Hence, defendant no. 1,2 and 3 shall be jointly as well as severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiff.
Since the suit has been filed u/o 33 rule 1CPC in Forma Pauperis, the Court fee, to be paid by the plaintiff on the compensation amount awarded, shall be the first charge upon the decree at the time of its execution/realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(SEEMA MAINI) ADJ03 (North)Delhi CS No. 100/10 page no. 19/18