Delhi District Court
Pushpender Kumar vs Airport Authority Of India on 30 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 04
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT : DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSW01-002212-2022
CS DJ ADJ: 210/2022
SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR
S/O SH. SANTOSH KUMAR
R/O: FLAT NO. 302, 2nd FLOOR,
POCKET - A, SARVAHIT APARTMENTS,
OPPOSITE I.P.UNIVERSITY,
SECTOR - 17, DWARKA,
SOUTH WEST, DELHI - 110078.
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS,
NR, OPERATIONAL OFFICES,
RANGPURI, NEW DELHI - 110037.
....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF AMOUNT
OF Rs. 22,78,368/- FOR MEDICAL
EXPENSES ALONG WITH
RECOVERY OF AMOUNT OF Rs.
5,00,000/- FOR COMPENSATION FOR
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION OF
THE PLAINTIFF TOWARDS HIS
DECEASED SON NAMELY
SHARTHAK AND ALSO FOR
MENTAL, PHYSICAL HARASSMENT
AND LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED
BY THE PLAINTIFF.
CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 1 of 30
Date of Institution : 11.03.2022
Date of Final Arguments : 03.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.06.2025
Counsel for Plaintiff : Sh. Sanjeev Bhatia
Counsel for Defendant : Sh. Amit Burdhan
Mohanty
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, Airport Authority of India (AAI), seeking recovery of ₹22,78,368/- incurred on the medical treatment of his deceased stepson and a further sum of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for his tragic demise. The gravamen of the Plaintiff's claim is that the Defendant was grossly negligent in its duty by failing to process his application to include his terminally ill stepson as a dependent for a period of nine months, which he alleges directly led to the denial of timely medical aid and caused the ensuing financial loss and death. The Defendant, while admitting its policy covers step-children, has vehemently contested the suit, contending that the delay was not due to any negligence on its part but was entirely attributable to the Plaintiff's own failure to provide complete, consistent, and verifiable documentation to establish the identity of the child, thereby justifying its inaction.
FACTS STATED IN THE PLAINT
2. The facts, as set out in the plaint, are summed up in brief hereinbelow:
CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 2 of 30a. The Plaintiff states that he is a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen, employed as a Junior Executive (ATM), Emp No. 10010001, with the Defendant, the Airport Authority of India (AAI), at the DATS Complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi. It is pleaded that on December 6, 2007, the Plaintiff married Smt. Seema, the daughter of late Sh. Rajinder Kumar Bali. At the time of marriage, his wife was a divorcee, having obtained a decree of divorce in HMA No. 380/04 from the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, vide order dated August 10, 2004.
b. The Plaintiff further avers that from her first marriage, his wife had a male child, Sarthak (born on December 15, 2002), whose custody and responsibility were entrusted to her. The Plaintiff asserts that ever since his marriage, he has taken over all responsibilities for Sarthak and has continuously contributed to his upbringing as a father.
c. It is the Plaintiff's case that on March 5, 2021, he moved an application before the Defendant's office with the specific request that "the name of my son Sarthak (Step son) may be added in the dependent's details so that all facilities which are given to the dependents of the employee to the Airport Authority of India would also be extended to my son Sarthak." The Plaintiff pleads that along with this application, he attached numerous documents, including a certified copy of his marriage certificate, an affidavit, the CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 3 of 30 certified copy of his wife's divorce decree, a photocopy of the Gazette of India, self-attested copies of Sarthak's Aadhaar card and Class 10th certificate, and a copy of his old medical card.
d. The Plaintiff alleges that despite his application and the submission of all necessary documents, the Defendant adopted a "reluctant behavior" and a "casual approach,"
resulting in the persistent failure to add his son's name to the medical card. This, he contends, was in direct contravention of the Defendant's own service rules, specifically citing the Gazette Notification of the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated June 24, 2003, which defines "family" to expressly include "step children" who are wholly dependent on the employee.
e. It is further pleaded that during this period, his son Sarthak was suffering from blood cancer and was in dire need of immediate and urgent medical assistance. Due to the Defendant's failure to update the medical card, the Plaintiff was unable to avail any medical facilities for his son. He claims he was forced to bear the enormous cost of treatment entirely from his own pocket, having spent all his savings and sold his immovable assets, thereby incurring a total expenditure of ₹22,78,368/-. The plaint details that the deceased son was lastly admitted for chemotherapy at Action Cancer Hospital in Paschim Vihar from October 17, 2021, to November 13, 2021.CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 4 of 30
f. Faced with inaction from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus, W.P.(C) No. 13703/2021, in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 3, 2021. Tragically, his son Sarthak passed away the very next day, on December 4, 2021.
g. The Plaintiff's central contention is that his son died due to the lack of proper and timely treatment, which was a direct result of the shortage of money caused by the Defendant's negligence. He asserts that the right to medical aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, he has filed the present suit seeking a decree for recovery of the medical expenses amounting to ₹22,78,368/- and further compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for the unnatural death of his son, the loss of love and affection, and the physical and mental harassment caused by the Defendant's alleged negligence.
FACTS STATED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
3. Notice of the present suit was issued and the defendant has put in its appearance through Counsel Sh. A.B.Mohanty on 19.05.2022. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant on 30.08.2022. The averments, made in the written statement, are summed up in brief as follow:
a. The Defendant begins with preliminary objections, contending that the suit is totally misconceived, based on the active concealment of material facts and deliberate distortion CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 5 of 30 of the same by the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and that the plaint discloses no cause of action, making it liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
b. On the merits of the case, the Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and places the entire onus for the non-enrollment of the stepson on the Plaintiff. The Defendant avers that at the time of his joining AAI on June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff did not deem it proper to inform the office that he was married to a divorced woman with a male child, namely "Master Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh." It is alleged that the Plaintiff failed to submit any relevant documents to this effect, as is evident from his Attestation Forms.
c. The Defendant contends that it was only on March 5, 2021, that the Plaintiff submitted some "illegible documents". Upon scrutiny, these documents allegedly revealed the facts of the Plaintiff's marriage and his stepson. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff created confusion by seeking to enroll a "Master Sarthak" while the divorce decree named the child "Master Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh." The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff should have declared the child as his stepson (rather than his own son) and should have provided a Gazette Notification for the change in name, which was never done.CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 6 of 30
d. The Defendant further submits that its requests for a proper Date of Birth certificate were not met until September 21, 2021, when the Plaintiff submitted a certificate that raised even more serious questions about its veracity. The Defendant has pointed out the following particulars from the said certificate: (i) Name: Sarthak Kumar, (ii) Father's Name: Deepak Arrora, (iii) Mother's Name: Sonia Arrora. It is the Defendant's primary contention that these names of the parents are in stark contradiction to the names mentioned in the wife's divorce decree, which were "Sh. Sarabjeet Singh @ Deepak Gupta" and "Smt. Seema @ Sonia"
respectively. The Defendant submits that these irreconcilable discrepancies prevented it from proceeding further without clarification.
e. To substantiate its claim of the Plaintiff's own fault, the Defendant relies on an email dated March 22, 2021, allegedly from the Plaintiff, where he stated, "due to the unavoidable circumstances the process of adding my Son Sarthak Kumar's name in my dependent details could not be completed on time." The Defendant contrasts this with the fact that the Plaintiff successfully made his biological son, Madhava Kumar, a dependent by promptly submitting all correct documents, arguing this proves the Plaintiff was fully aware of the correct procedure but failed to follow it for his stepson.CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 7 of 30
f. The Defendant, while clarifying that AAI is governed by its own Airports Authority of India (Employees Medical Attendance and Treatment) Regulations, 2003, explicitly admits that these regulations permit a stepson to be a medical dependent. However, its defense is that this specific case could not be processed due to the Plaintiff's failure to provide verifiable documents. It is further alleged that the Plaintiff never formally disclosed his son's disease, his hospitalization, or requested any specific urgent assistance, apart from the flawed enrollment application. The Defendant also notes that it only came to know of the child's death after the Plaintiff withdrew his writ petition from the High Court, thereby denying the Defendant an opportunity to file its reply there.
g. In conclusion, the Defendant characterizes the Plaintiff's conduct as "obstinate," "unbecoming of an employee," and amounting to non-discipline. It denies any negligence or liability for the expenses or compensation claimed, asserting that the unfortunate outcome was a result of the Plaintiff's own actions of concealing facts and failing to complete the necessary formalities. The Defendant therefore prays that the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
REPLICATION
4. In the replication, the Plaintiff has traversed the allegations made in the written statement, denying all claims of CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 8 of 30 concealment, non-compliance, or of submitting incomplete documents. While addressing the Defendant's primary defense regarding documentary discrepancies, the Plaintiff explains that the name of his stepson was changed from 'Ishmeet @ Sukh' to 'Sarthak' after the child began residing with him, a fact he claims was reflected in official documents like the passport and school certificates that were submitted with the application. He categorizes the Defendant's objections as 'frivolous grounds' and contends that the Defendant, with malafide intent and an 'adamant nature,' deliberately failed to decide his application dated March 5, 2021, for over nine months. The Plaintiff argues that since the Defendant admits its own regulations cover step-children, this prolonged inaction was inexcusable and constituted gross negligence, which is the direct cause of his son's death for want of timely medical assistance, thereby reaffirming the averments and prayers in the plaint.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.02.2023 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? O.P.P.
2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest thereof, if so, at what rate and period? O.P.P.
3. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? O.P.D. CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 9 of 30
4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of concealment of facts by the plaintiff? O.P.D.
5. Relief.
No other issue arises or is pressed for.
THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. The Plaintiff has led his evidence by way of affidavit and has examined only himself in support of his case. The Plaintiff, PW-1, tendered his evidence affidavit which is exhibited as Exh. PW1/A. The Plaintiff's evidence affidavit, Exh. PW1/A, largely serves as a verbatim reproduction of the averments made in the plaint. The Plaintiff, PW-1, also relied upon the following documents in his deposition:
a. Exh. PW1/1 - Copy of Identity Care/Medical Card issued by the defendant to the plaintiff (OSR) b. Exh. PW1/2 (Colly) - Copy of marriage certificate and copy of decree of divorce dated 10.08.2004 (OSR). c. Exh. PW1/3 - Copy of 10th class marksheet of the Plaintiff's deceased son. (OSR) d. Exh. PW1/4 - Copy of passport of deponent's deceased son (OSR) e. Exh. PW1/5 - Copy of application dated 5 March 2021 along with documents moved by the Plaintiff before the office of defendant to add the name of his deceased son in the details of dependents list. Note - objections raised by the CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 10 of 30 defendant on the ground that the original or the certified copies are not produced.
f. Exh. PW1/6 (Colly) - Copy of all medical records of the plaintiff's deceased son along with his death certificate issued by the Action Cancer Hospital. Note - objection raised by the Defendant that some of the documents are photocopies and computer generated copies without certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. g. Exh. PW1/7 - Copy of the application for issue of photo identity cum medical card for serving employee h. Exh. PW1/8 - Copy of Gazette Notification of Government of Ministry of Civil Aviation, Airport Authority of India dated 24.06.2003.
7. Subsequently on 08.06.2023, during his cross examination, Plaintiff also relied on the following documents:
a. Exh. PW-1/X1 - Copy of birth certificate of the plaintiff's deceased son.
b. Exh. PW-1/X2 - Certificate under Section 65B which bears the signature of the Plaintiff at points 'A' and 'B'. This certificate was brought in response to the objection raised by the Defendant at the time of tendering of Exh. PW1/6 (Colly).
c. Ex. PW-1/X3 - True copy of the death certificate of the plaintiff's deceased son issued by Action Cancer Hospital (OSR). This certificate was brought in response to the CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 11 of 30 objection raised by the Defendant at the time of tendering of Exh. PW1/6 (Colly).
8. PW-1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Defendant on 01.06.2023 and 08.06.2023 and was discharged, upon conclusion of his cross examination. Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on 17.04.2023.
THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
9. The Defendant has led its evidence and has examined only one witness namely Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Narender Prasad, in support of their case. The evidence affidavit of DW-1, Sh. Ajay Kumar is exhibited as Ex DW-1/A. The evidence affidavit of DW-1, Ex DW-1/A is a structured reiteration of the Written Statement.
10. DW-1 also relied upon the documents:
a. The attestation forms from 2017 submitted at the time of joining - Ex. DW-1/1 b. The AAI Medical Regulations - Ex. DW-1/2, already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8.
c. The 2019 application form for issuance of Photo Identity Card cum Medical Card - Ex. DW-1/3, already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/X6.
d. The Plaintiff's application dated 05.03.2021 - Ex. DW-1/4.CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 12 of 30
e. The email correspondence from March 2021 - Exh. DW-1/5 and the reminder email from July 2021 - Ex. DW-1/6 f. The final application dated 21.09.2021 with the birth certificate of the plaintiff's deceased son - Ex. DW-1/7 (Colly), the first page is already exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/X4.
11. DW-1 was cross examined on 23.08.2023 and 14.09.2023 and discharged. Defendant's Evidence was closed on 14.09.2023.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
12. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, Sh. Sanjeev Bhatia, has vociferously argued the case on behalf of the Plaintiff. Besides reiterating the facts as pleaded in the plaint and reaffirmed in the evidence of the Plaintiff (PW-1), the Ld. Counsel has made the following principal submissions based on the evidence that has come on record:
a. On Negligence and Dereliction of Duty: It is vehemently contended that the primary evidence of the Defendant's gross negligence is the undisputed nine-month delay in processing the Plaintiff's application dated 05.03.2021 (Exh. PW1/5). It is argued that for an application pertaining to medical benefits, such an inordinate delay is unconscionable and amounts to a clear dereliction of the duty of care owed by an employer to its employee. Ld. Counsel submits that CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 13 of 30 this administrative apathy continued until the tragic demise of the Plaintiff's son, rendering the entire purpose of the application futile.
b. On Documentary Discrepancies: It is argued that the alleged documentary discrepancies were not insurmountable and were used as a pretext by the Defendant to shirk its responsibility. Ld. Counsel has submitted that while there was a change of name from 'Ishmeet' to 'Sarthak,' this was a familial change and was clearly reflected in multiple official documents like the Passport (Exh. PW-1/4) and the Class X marksheet (Exh. PW-1/3). It is contended that the Defendant acted unreasonably and arbitrarily by fixating on the requirement of a birth certificate while ignoring other substantial proofs of identity which were already on record and sufficient to establish the child's identity. c. On the Defendant's Duty as a "State": Ld. Counsel has emphasized that the Defendant, being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot act with bureaucratic apathy. It has a higher constitutional duty to be a model employer and to act in a manner that upholds the right to health and life guaranteed under Article 21. It is submitted that the Defendant's own witness, DW-1, admitted that the AAI regulations (Exh. PW-1/8) cover step- children and that their own attestation forms do not seek specific information distinguishing a step-child, which exposes the hollowness of their defense of concealment. The CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 14 of 30 Defendant was fully aware from the application of 05.03.2021 itself that the request was for a "step son."
d. On the Failure to Inform about Cancer: Addressing the issue of not informing the Defendant in writing about the son's cancer diagnosis, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the Plaintiff, as PW-1, has explained his disturbed state of mind during that traumatic period. It is argued that an application for medical benefits itself implies a present or future need for medical care, and the Defendant's duty to process it efficiently is not contingent on being informed of the specific gravity of the illness. The duty to act was triggered by the application itself, not by the subsequent diagnosis.
13. In conclusion, the Ld. Counsel has prayed that the evidence on record establishes a clear case of administrative negligence on the part of the Defendant. This negligence, it is argued, led to the Plaintiff being deprived of crucial financial support during a time of immense need, directly causing him pecuniary loss of ₹22,78,368/- and contributing to the tragic demise of his young son. It is thus prayed that the suit be decreed in its entirety in favour of the Plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant, Sh. Amit Bardhan Mohanty, has strongly refuted the Plaintiff's contentions and has argued for the dismissal of the suit with costs. The primary submissions made on behalf of the Defendant are as follows:
CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 15 of 30a. No Negligence; Justifiable Administrative Process: The Ld. Counsel has argued that the present case is not one of administrative negligence, but of a justified and necessary administrative process that was triggered entirely by the Plaintiff's submission of confusing and contradictory documents. It is submitted that the delay was a direct result of the Defendant's duty to conduct due diligence and was not a result of apathy or inaction.
b. Material Contradictions in Documents: It is contended that the Plaintiff has failed to appreciate the gravity of the discrepancies in the documents he furnished. Counsel has drawn the Court's attention to the undisputed contradiction between the name of the child in the divorce decree (Ex. PW-1/2) i.e., "Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh," and the name in the application, "Sarthak Kumar." More significantly, it is argued that the birth certificate (Ex. PW-1/X5) submitted by the Plaintiff himself contained entirely different names for the parents ("Deepak Arrora" and "Sonia Arrora") compared to the divorce decree. It is argued that no public body, accountable for its funds, could have ignored these material contradictions and processed the application without clarification.
c. Plaintiff's Own Conduct and Contribution to Delay: Ld. Counsel submits that the evidence clearly shows the Plaintiff is the author of his own misfortune. It is argued that the Plaintiff:CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 16 of 30
1. Failed to provide clear details of his family upon joining in 2017.
2. Admitted during his cross-examination to personally striking out his son's name from a prior medical card application (Ex. PW-1/X6) because he lacked the necessary documents.
3. Took over six months, from March to September 2021, to furnish the birth certificate that was specifically requested by the Defendant via email dated 19.03.2021 (Ex. DW-1/5).
d. Lack of Knowledge of Medical Urgency: The Ld. Counsel has forcefully argued that the Plaintiff's case must fail on the basis of his own admission that he never informed the Defendant in writing about his son's cancer diagnosis. It is submitted that the legal standard of care is dictated by known risks. The Defendant was processing what appeared to be a standard, albeit complicated, dependency application. It cannot be judged by the heightened standards of a medical emergency that was never communicated to it. The Defendant, therefore, cannot be held negligent for not acting with a sense of urgency that it was never made aware of. e. Proactive Communication and Adherence to Rules: It is contended that the Defendant, far from being inactive, acted in good faith by sending multiple reminder emails seeking clarification, as evidenced by Ex. DW-1/5 and Ex. DW-1/6. Ld. Counsel submits that the Defendant's admission that its CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 17 of 30 rules cover step-children proves that this was never a case of denying an eligible claim on principle, but was purely a matter of enforcing necessary procedural compliance to verify the dependent's identity before extending benefits.
15. In conclusion, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant submits that the Plaintiff has completely failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence. The evidence on record conclusively shows that the delay was a direct consequence of the Plaintiff's own actions, omissions, and submission of contradictory documents. It is therefore prayed that the suit, being devoid of any merit, be dismissed with costs.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? O.P.P.
16. The onus to prove this issue lies squarely upon the Plaintiff. The prayer in the suit is for a decree of ₹22,78,368/- towards medical expenses and ₹5,00,000/- as compensation. This claim is founded entirely on the tort of negligence. To succeed, the Plaintiff must establish, on a preponderance of probabilities, the three essential ingredients of negligence: (i) that the Defendant owed him and his deceased son a duty of care; (ii) that the Defendant breached this duty by its acts or omissions; and (iii) that CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 18 of 30 this breach of duty directly caused the financial loss and the tragic demise for which the damages are claimed.
A. Existence of a Duty of Care
17. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is that of an employee and employer. The medical benefits for employees and their dependents are governed by the Airports Authority of India (Employees Medical Attendance and Treatment) Regulations, 2003, a copy of which is on record as Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. DW-1/2. The definition of "family" in these regulations explicitly includes "step children." This fact is not in dispute; indeed, the defense witness DW-1, during his cross- examination, admitted that the Defendant is governed by these regulations and that they provide for the medical dependency of a stepson.
18. In light of this established employer-employee relationship and the existence of a specific regulatory framework providing for medical benefits to a "step son," it is concluded that the Defendant (AAI) undoubtedly owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff. This duty encompassed the responsibility to consider and process his application dated 05.03.2021 (Exh. PW1/5) in a fair, reasonable, and timely manner.
B. Breach of Duty (Analysis of Negligence)
19. The central question before this Court is whether the Defendant breached this duty of care. The Plaintiff's case is that CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 19 of 30 the nine-month period from the submission of his application on 05.03.2021 until his son's death on 04.12.2021, during which his application remained undecided, constitutes a gross and unreasonable delay amounting to negligence. The Defendant's defense is that this delay was not due to its negligence but was justified by the Plaintiff's own failure to provide complete, consistent, and verifiable documents.
20. Let us examine the Defendant's justification in light of the evidence. The Defendant has alleged concealment and non- compliance by the Plaintiff from the very beginning of his service in 2017. However, during the cross-examination of the defense witness, DW-1, he made a crucial admission that the Defendant's attestation forms (Ex. DW-1/1) do not have any specific column to distinguish between a "son" and a "step son," nor do they require an employee to declare if their spouse is a divorcee. Therefore, the Defendant's allegation that the Plaintiff concealed these facts at the time of joining is not sustainable, as its own procedures did not solicit this specific information.
21. The matter, however, is different when it comes to the application of 05.03.2021 and the subsequent correspondence. The evidence on record clearly establishes the following:
a. The Name Discrepancy: It is an admitted fact that the Plaintiff applied to add "Sarthak Kumar," while the divorce decree (Ex. PW1/2 Colly) mentioned the child's name as "Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh." The Plaintiff (PW-1) admitted in CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 20 of 30 his cross-examination that no formal process like a gazette notification was undertaken for this name change. b. The Parentage Discrepancy: The birth certificate (Ex.
PW-1/X5), submitted by the Plaintiff himself only on 21.09.2021, contained names of the biological parents ("Deepak Arrora" and "Sonia Arrora") that were different from the names mentioned in the divorce decree ("Sarabjeet Singh @ Deepak Gupta" and "Smt. Seema @ Sonia").
c. The Defendant's Response: The Defendant did not remain silent. It is proven on record through emails dated 19.03.2021 (Ex. DW-1/5) and 09.07.2021 (Ex. DW-1/6) that the Defendant's office sought clarification and specifically requested the birth certificate.
22. These discrepancies are not minor or frivolous. For a public sector undertaking, which is accountable for public funds, verifying the identity of a dependent before extending financial benefits is a fundamental administrative safeguard. The conflicting names in primary documents like a divorce decree and a birth certificate created a genuine and reasonable ground for the Defendant to pause the processing of the application and seek clarification. The conduct of the Defendant in sending emails asking for documents cannot be termed as negligent inaction.
23. The most crucial aspect, however, is the element of urgency. The entire premise of the Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant's delay was negligent in the face of a medical CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 21 of 30 emergency. To hold the Defendant liable on this ground, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant was made aware of this emergency. During his cross-examination, the Plaintiff (PW-1) made a categorical and fatal admission:
a. He admitted that he never communicated in writing to the Defendant that his son was suffering from blood cancer. b. He further admitted that his main application of 5 March 2021 (Exh. PW1/5) did not mention his son's critical illness.
24. While the Court has immense sympathy for the Plaintiff's personal trauma, which he cited as the reason for this omission, legal liability for negligence is not based on sympathy. It is based on a breach of a known duty. The Defendant cannot be held liable for failing to act with emergency speed on a matter whose urgency was never formally communicated to it. Without the knowledge of the son's life-threatening condition, the Defendant was processing a standard, albeit complicated, application for dependency, and its actions of seeking verification for documented discrepancies were not unreasonable. The Plaintiff, by his own admission, also contributed to the delay by submitting the birth certificate only in September 2021, six months after his initial application.
C. Causation and Entitlement to Damages
25. Since the essential ingredient of "breach of duty" has not been established by the Plaintiff, the chain of causation required to prove negligence is broken. As this court has found that CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 22 of 30 the delay was primarily caused by the Plaintiff's own submission of discrepant documents and his failure to formally apprise the Defendant of the medical emergency, the Defendant cannot be held legally liable for the consequences that followed. Therefore, the claim for recovery of medical expenses of ₹22,78,368/- and compensation of ₹5,00,000/- must fail.
Decision on Issue No. 1:
26. In light of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the heavy onus placed upon him to prove that the Defendant was negligent and that such negligence entitles him to recover the suit amount. The delay in the processing of the application was substantially caused by genuine and material documentary discrepancies for which the Defendant was justified in seeking clarification, and the critical element of medical urgency was never formally communicated by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
27. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2:
If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest thereof, if so, at what rate and for what period? O.P.P. CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 23 of 30
28. The onus to prove this issue is upon the Plaintiff. This issue is consequential in nature, and its determination is entirely dependent on the finding on Issue No. 1.
29. As has been held in the detailed adjudication of the preceding issue, this Court has found that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the principal suit amount, as he has failed to establish the foundational requirement of negligence on the part of the Defendant. Issue No. 1 has, therefore, been decided against the Plaintiff.
30. Since the principal amount itself has not been decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, the question of awarding any interest thereon does not arise. The condition precedent for the consideration of this issue, i.e., "If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative," has not been met. The claim for interest is ancillary to the claim for the principal sum, and when the primary claim fails, the ancillary claim cannot survive independently.
31. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is also decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3:
Whether the suit is without any cause of action? O.P.D.
32. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Defendant. The Defendant, in its preliminary objections, has contended that the suit is liable to be rejected as it discloses no cause of action.
CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 24 of 3033. The term "cause of action" refers to the complete bundle of essential facts which a plaintiff must allege and prove to be entitled to a relief from a court of law. For the purpose of determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look only at the averments made in the plaint itself and any documents filed along with it. The allegations in the plaint must be taken as true, and the defense raised by the defendant is not to be considered. The question is not whether the plaintiff has a strong or weak case that is likely to succeed, but whether the pleaded facts, if proven, would grant the plaintiff a legal right to a relief.
34. A perusal of the plaint in the present matter reveals that the Plaintiff has pleaded the following essential facts:
a. The existence of an employer-employee relationship with the Defendant.
b. The existence of a right to avail medical benefits for his dependent "step son" under the Defendant's own regulations. c. The act of applying for this benefit on 05.03.2021.
d. The alleged breach of duty by the Defendant through its failure to process the application for a period of nine months. e. The consequent damage suffered by the Plaintiff in the form of pecuniary loss (medical expenses) and the tragic death of his son.
35. This set of allegations, when read together, clearly and unequivocally constitutes a valid cause of action based on the tort of negligence. The plaint successfully pleads the existence of a CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 25 of 30 right, its alleged infringement by the Defendant, and the damage claimed to have resulted therefrom.
36. The contentions raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's concealment of facts, submission of discrepant documents, and his own contribution to the delay are matters of defense. These arguments challenge the Plaintiff's ability to succeed on the merits of the case, not his fundamental right to file the suit. The fact that this Court, after a full trial, has decided Issue No. 1 against the Plaintiff does not mean that the suit was filed without any cause of action. A plaintiff may have a perfectly valid cause of action but may fail to prove it with sufficient evidence at trial. The failure to prove the case does not retrospectively erase the cause of action that was pleaded.
37. Therefore, the Defendant has failed to discharge the onus of proving that the suit is without any cause of action. The plaint, on the face of it, discloses a clear and complete cause of action against the Defendant.
38. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4:
Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of concealment of facts by the plaintiff? O.P.D.
39. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Defendant. This issue invokes the equitable principle that a litigant who CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 26 of 30 approaches the Court must do so with "clean hands." The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has concealed and distorted material facts to such an extent that the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, irrespective of its merits.
40. For a suit to be dismissed on the ground of concealment, the Defendant must establish two things: first, that there was a deliberate and willful suppression of facts, and second, that the facts suppressed were material to the controversy and were concealed with an intention to gain an unfair advantage. Not every omission amounts to a concealment that is fatal to the suit.
41. The Defendant has alleged several concealments on the part of the Plaintiff. Let us examine them in light of the evidence:
a. Concealment of wife's divorcee status: The Defendant repeatedly pleaded that the Plaintiff failed to disclose that he had married a divorced woman. However, the Defendant's own witness, DW-1, admitted in his cross-examination that it was not necessary for the Plaintiff to declare his wife's prior marital status and that the Defendant's own attestation forms (Ex. DW-1/1) had no column soliciting this information. This allegation is, therefore, entirely unfounded.
b. Concealment of "stepson" status at the time of joining: The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff wrongly declared his stepson as his "son." Again, DW-1 admitted in his cross-CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 27 of 30
examination that the attestation forms do not have separate, specific columns to distinguish between a "son" and a "step son." While the Plaintiff could have been more precise, describing a stepson he has raised as his "son" in a form that lacks specificity cannot be elevated to the level of a malicious concealment, particularly when the Defendant's own regulations (Ex. PW-1/8) afford them equal status for medical benefits.
c. Concealment of name change and parentage discrepancies:
This is the most significant aspect of the Defendant's argument. It is an established fact that the Plaintiff did not volunteer information about his stepson's original name ("Ishmeet Singh @ Sukh") and that the birth certificate submitted by him contained names of parents that conflicted with the divorce decree. These facts are undoubtedly material, as they directly impact the verification of the dependent's identity.
42. The crucial question, however, is whether the non- disclosure of these facts was a deliberate, mala fide "concealment" designed to mislead the Defendant, or a result of procedural confusion and disorganization on the Plaintiff's part. The evidence points towards the latter. The Plaintiff himself submitted the divorce decree (Ex. PW1/2 Colly), the very document which brought the original name to light. A person with a fraudulent intent to conceal a fact is unlikely to furnish the primary evidence of that very fact. His conduct appears to be that of a person who, CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 28 of 30 having informally changed his stepson's name for family and school purposes, failed to appreciate the requirements of a formal, bureaucratic verification process.
43. This Court has already given full consideration and weight to these documentary discrepancies and the Plaintiff's lack of clarity while adjudicating Issue No. 1. Indeed, these deficiencies were the primary reason for finding that the Defendant was not negligent and for deciding the suit against the Plaintiff on its merits. The consequence of the Plaintiff's failure to provide clear, consistent, and verifiable documents has been the denial of the relief he sought.
44. The principle of dismissing a suit for concealment is intended to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the court by making a case based on falsehoods. In this case, the Plaintiff brought his grievance to the court along with the very documents that contained the inconsistencies. While this proved fatal to his claim on merits, it does not demonstrate the kind of fraudulent intent.
45. Therefore, the Defendant has not discharged the heavy onus of proving that the Plaintiff's conduct, while procedurally flawed and ultimately fatal to his case, amounted to a mala fide concealment warranting the dismissal of the suit itself.
46. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is decided against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 29 of 30RELIEF
47. In view of the findings of this Court on the issues framed, particularly on the pivotal Issue No. 1 wherein it has been held that the Plaintiff has failed to prove negligence on the part of the Defendant and is therefore not entitled to recover the suit amount, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this Court.
48. Consequently, the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
49. However, considering the tragic and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the Plaintiff has suffered an immense and irreversible personal loss, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate that the parties be left to bear their own respective costs. No order as to costs.
50. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
51. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED : 30.06.2025 (Digitally signed and uploaded on 04.07.2025) Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.07.04 16:13:05 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI CS DJ ADJ 933/2022 Page 30 of 30