Delhi District Court
Sh. Arvind Kumar vs Medical Superintendent on 16 April, 2019
New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019
Old Case No. 1/09
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -03,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS,
NEW DELHI
New CS No. 59710/16
Old CS No. 1/09
More than 10 year old matter
In the matter of:-
1. Sh. Arvind Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kaptan Singh
2. Smt. Mala Devi
W/o Late Sh. Kaptan Singh
3. Baby Anjali
Through Next Friend Father & Natural Guardian
Sh. Arvind Kumar
All Resident of 452, Block-J, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi-110033
....... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Medical Superintendent
Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 1 of 24
New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019
Old Case No. 1/09
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Health & Social Welfare,
National Capital Territory of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat
New Delhi-110002
3. Medical Superintendent
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer & Research Centre
Rohini, Sector-5,
Delhi-110085
4. Medical Superintendent
Dr. Ram Monohar Lohia Hospital,
New Delhi
......... Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 02.03.2009
Date of Final Arguments : 15.03.2019
Date of Judgment : 16.04.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is for compensation/ damages on account of medical negligence.
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 2 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 PLAINT
2. Case of plaintiffs is that Smt. Mala, who was the wife of plaintiff no. 1 and mother of plaintiff no. 3 was suffering from fever and stomach ache in March, 2006. Plaintiff no. 2 is the mother-in-law. Both plaintiff no. 1 and 2 took her to defendant no. 1 hospital. After examining Smt. Mala, they were told that she will have to undergo abortion. On 07.03.2006, on advise of doctors of defendant no. 1 and consent of plaintiff no. 1 and 2, Smt. Mala underwent abortion and was discharged on 08.03.2006. However, her condition deteriorated. She was regularly taken to the hospital for treatment. After sometime doctors of defendant no. 1 advised test for Typhoid, TB and various other tests. All the tests were got done, but the doctors could not detect any disease. However, her medical condition continuously deteriorated.
2.1 That on 04.05.2006, she got very sick and was taken to defendant no. 1 hospital. The doctors of defendant no. 1 advised ultrasound and asked plaintiff no. 1 and 2 to get the same done from private clinic. On Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 3 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 05.05.2006 her ultrasound was got done and report revealed that the earlier abortion was not done properly and pieces of baby was left in her uterus. Thereafter, doctors of defendant no. 1 advised for other abortion which was done on 05.05.2006 itself.
2.2 On 06.05.2006, doctors told that patient has deficiency of blood and requires two bottles of blood. Plaintiff no. 1 and 2 immediately went to Rajiv Gandhi Hospital i.e. defendant no. 3. They took one bottle of blood from plaintiff no. 1 and Rs. 850/- cash and gave one bottle blood to him which was given by doctors of defendant no. 1 to his wife. Another bottle was brought by the son of landlord of plaintiff no. 1 and 2 from Hindu Rao Hospital which was also given to his wife. However, her condition did not improve. When her condition did not improve, doctors of defendant no. 1 told that they think that she is suffering from AIDS.
2.3 On 15.05.2006, she was got tested for HIV/AIDS and vide report dated 15.05.2006, she was found suffering from AIDS. She was referred to RML Hospital i.e. defendant Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 4 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 no. 4. On 22.05.2006 another blood was given to her as her condition was very critical. Thereafter, on 29.05.2006, she expired at RML Hospital. On 01.06.2006, plaintiff got himself tested from Rajan Babu TB Hospital and was tested positive for AIDS. When his father came to know about this disease, he was shocked and suffered high fever and anxiety and almost after 15 days, he expired due to shock.
2.4 It is alleged that Smt. Mala got infected with AIDS on 07.03.2006 when she underwent abortion by the doctors of defendant no. 1 and was discharged on 08.03.2006. The doctors did not take precautionary measures and abortion was not properly conducted. She was given various injections and operation for abortion was done in very unhygienic and unsafe manner without due care and caution, due to which her medical condition deteriorated. It is further alleged that the blood which was given to Smt. Mala was given without any proper testing and without confirming that the said blood is free from any kind of transmitted infection. Before that she was healthy and was not suffering from any medical problem. She had given birth to plaintiff no. 3 on 21.09.2005 and she is not Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 5 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 suffering from HIV AIDS. It is alleged that the doctors of defendant no. 1 had been negligent while doing the abortion which was done in a very unhygienic manner and various injections were given to her. The plaintiffs have claimed compensation on various head as follows:
Sl. No. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1. Compensation/ damages for life of the wife of plaintiff Rs. 15,00,000/-
no. 1, namely, Smt. Mala who expired due to AIDS received in your hospital on or after 07.03.2006.
2. Compensation/ damages for the life of plaintiff no. 1, Rs. 15,00,000/-
namely, Arvind Kumar as he received AIDS from his wife and his life may end at any time in future by AIDS.
3. Compensation/ damages for the life of the father of Rs. 10,00,000/-
plaintiff no. 1 who expired due to shock that plaintiff no. 1 is also suffering from AIDS.
4. Expenses on medicine etc. for surviving the life of Rs. 2,00,000/-
plaintiff no. 1 from AIDS.
5. Compensation for expenses on food, clothes, Rs. 10,00,000/-
education and other misc. of daughter of plaintiff no. 1 as the life of plaintiff no. 1 is uncertain due to AIDS.
6. Expenses to be incurred on the marriage of the Rs. 10,00,000/-
female child of client no. 1.
7. Compensation on account of mental, physical agony Rs. 10,00,000/-
faced by plaintiff no. 1 and 2 since 07.03.2006 during the medical treatment at B.J.R. Hospital and thereafter, the permanent mental and physical harassment for whole life of plaintiff no. 1 & 2.
Total Rs. 72,00,000/-
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 6 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 2.5 Legal notice dated 12.03.2008 and notice under Section 80 CPC dated 01.05.2008 was served upon defendant no. 1. It is prayed that decree for the sum of Rs. 72 Lacs towards damages and compensation be passed against the defendants jointly and severally with pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization alongwith the cost of the suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1
3. In the WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 1, it is stated that the possibility of carrying HIV infection/ positive status to both plaintiff no. 1 and his deceased wife Mala could not be ruled out before coming to the hospital because they had not undergone or got themselves tested for the said infection. There is no medical negligence or deficiency in service on part of the defendant hospital. It is following the routine procedure to prevent infections and follows the guideline for the operation room. All use and throw syringes are used as per the guidelines. The wife of Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 7 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 plaintiff no. 1 was treated in hygienic condition and the instruments used upon her were also packed and autoclaved and all the syringes were sterile disposable syringes. An HIV infected person may take 6 months to 10 years to develop AIDS; on an average 50% of those infected take 8 years to progress to AIDS. It cannot be accepted by any means that wife of plaintiff no. 1 got the HIV disease during the evacuation of uterus or during the blood transfusion which was done during March and May 2006 respectively as she died on 29.05.2006. The deadly disease was acquired by her year ago. No one within a period of three months die after being contaminated with the HIV+. HIV infected individual becomes/ turns out to be an AIDS case only when symptoms of opportunistic infection start appearing. This may take as long as 8 to 10 years.
3.1 The hospital had taken all due care in treatment of wife of plaintiff no. 1. Basic information on HIV AIDS and for HIV testing is given to pregnant woman with an unknown HIV status and in labour when she comes to hospital and it is for the person to voluntarily opt for the Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 8 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 said test. That on 07.03.2006, Smt. Mala came to hospital with a critical problem of bleeding from her vagina. She was two and a half months pregnant. Seeing her condition, she was immediately admitted in emergency and after checkup it was found that she was in process of natural abortion, thus, she was advised for the evacuation of uterus (D/E). After operation on 07.03.2006, she became normal and was discharged on 08.03.2006. Thereafter, she kept on visiting the OPD for regular checkup.
3.2 On 08.04.2006, she came with the complaint of fever. After examination, she was advised for routine blood tests and sputum examination. She was advised some medicines and asked to visit again, if there is no improvement. The blood reports did not point or reflected any infection.
3.3 On 04.05.2006 at around 9:30 pm, she came in the casualty with history of fever and bleeding from vagina. On examination, she was advised ultrasound of lower abdomen. In the ultrasound report dated 05.05.2006, it was found that some clots during previous Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 9 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 natural process of abortion again exist in the uterus which was the cause of bleeding in vagina. Her uterus was evacuated again. Since her haemoglobin was found to be low, she looked anaemic, she was advised for blood transfusion. Since the blood bank facility was not available in defendant no. 1 hospital, the relatives of plaintiff no. 1 brought the blood from nearby blood bank i.e. Rajeev Gandhi Cancer Institute and Hindu Rao Hospital. That it is mandatory for the blood bank to carry out the tests of blood for HIV, VDRL, HB Sag (Hepatitis B) HCV and Malaria Paracide before giving the same to any person. Necessary certificate of testing is also given with the blood.
3.4 On 06.05.2006 and 10.05.2006, with all due care and precaution, blood was transfused to Smt. Mala. She was given due medical care but her condition did not improve to the satisfaction. She was advised for HIV Test at VCTC Lab. Her test was carried out after proper counseling. In report dated 15.05.2006, it was revealed that she is suffering from HIV+. On 16.05.2006, she was immediately referred to higher centre i.e. RML Hospital. It is stated that the possibility of getting conceived again after the abortion Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 10 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 on 07.03.2006 cannot be ruled out as the ultrasound report revealed product of conception. The defendant has denied the remaining contents of the plaint.
4. No WS has been filed by defendant no. 2 and 3. Defendant no. 2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order 23.04.2018.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.4
5. In the WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 4, it is stated that there is no cause of action against defendant no. 4 as Smt. Mala was admitted with defendant no. 4 on 22.05.2006 in Medical Unit-05 and she expired on 29.05.2006 with a diagnosis of SIDS (HIV I and II) with anemia, Hyponatremia with Diusseminated Koch's (Tuberculosis). She was found HIV+ before admission with defendant no. 4 hospital.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of pleading following issues are settled vide order dated 08.08.2013:
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.Page No. 11 of 24
New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09
1. Whether defendant no. 1 and 3 were negligent and careless in providing medical treatment and conducting operation for abortion of the deceased? OPP
2. Whether blood supplied by defendant no. 3 was infected? OPP
3. Whether defendant no. 3 was careless and negligent when supplying blood to plaintiff no. 1 to be provided to the deceased? OPP
4. If the answer to any of the above issues is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and, if so, to what extent and which of the defendant would be liable to the same and to what extent?
5. Whether defendant no. 4 was negligent in performing any of the duties? If so, to what effect? OPP
6. Relief.
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 12 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF'S
7. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case have examined four witnesses.
A. PW-1 is Sh. Arvind i.e. plaintiff no. 1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide EX. PW1/1 and has relied upon following documents:
1. Ex. PW1/A is Election ID Proof(OSR).
2. Ex. PW1/B is photocopy of Birth Certificate. The same is marked as Mark PW1/B.
3. Ex. PW1/C is original Discharge Summary dated
08.03.2006.
4. Ex. PW1/D is original OPD Ticket dated 31.03.2006 and 08.04.2006 (date is mentioned on the back side of the slip).
5. Ex. PW1/E is original OPD Slip dated 10.04.2018.
6. Ex. PW1/F is original Test Slip dated 12.04.2006.
7. Ex. PW1/G is original OPD Slip dated 03.05.2006
8. Ex. PW1/H is original Ultrasound Report Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 13 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 dated 05.05.2006.
9. Ex. PW1/I is original cash memo dated 05.05.2006.
10. Ex. PW1/J is Donor Card bearing no. 3556.
The same is marked as Mark B.
11. Ex. PW1/K is original slip of Hindu Rao Hospital, Blood Bank dated 09.05.2006.
12. Ex. PW1/L is original Laboratory Report Form dated 15.05.2006.
13. Ex. PW1/M is the original Referral Card dated 15.05.2006.
14. Ex. PW1/N is original Discharge Summary dated 16.05.2006.
15. Ex. PW1/O is Blood Request Form dated 22.05.2006.
16. Ex. PW1/P is original X-ray/Ultrasound Report dated 22.05.2006.
17. Ex. PW1/Q (colly.) is original report of Department of Microbiology dated 23.05.2006.
18. Ex. PW1/R is original C.T. Requisition Form.
19. Ex. PW1/S is original death report dated Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 14 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 29.05.2006.
20. Ex. PW1/T is original death certificate issued on 19.08.2008.
21. Mark PW1/U is photocopy of Laboratory Report Form dated 01.06.2006.
22. Ex. PW1/V is original Laboratory Report Form dated 21.05.2007.
23. Mark PW1/W is photocopy of complaint to SHO PS Jahangirpuri dated 01.09.2006. (Colly. At page no. 27 to 34).
24. Ex. PW1/W1 is the RTI dated 12.03.2008 in respect of medical treatment of deceased Smt. Mala (inadvertently the Ex. No. is not stated in para 15 of the affidavit where the said document has been relied upon, hence, the same is Ex. PW1/W1).
25. Ex. PW1/X is original Certificate of tailoring of deceased.
26. Ex. PW1/Y (colly.) is original Legal Notice alongwith Receipt of Speed Post and UPC dated 01.05.2008.
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 15 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 B. PW-2 is Smt. Munni Devi. She has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW2/A. C. PW-3 and PW-4 are Sh. Suresh Kumar Jindal and Sh. Ashok Tyagi, Public Relation Inspector (Postal). They both deposed that summoned record has been weeded out.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
8. No evidence has been led by any of the defendants.
FINDINGS
9. Heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 and perused the complete record file. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and damages on account of death of Smt. Mala. As per the plaintiffs, she contracted the deadly disease of HIV due to the negligence of doctors of defendant no. 1. The question for consideration is whether deceased Smt. Mala contracted Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 16 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 the disease and expired due to the negligence of defendants.
10. The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man could not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property. The definition involves three constituents of negligence:
1. The existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant. A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty.
2. Breach of the said duty. The failure to Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.Page No. 17 of 24
New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and
3. Consequential damage, which is both casually connected with such breach and recognized by the law, has been suffered by the complainant.
10.1 Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs; for, damage is a necessary ingredient of this tort. In civil proceedings, in order to prove negligence a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt as opposed to the criminal proceedings (Reliance placed on Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30).
11. The case of plaintiffs is that Smt. Mala expired due to the negligence and deficiency of service on behalf of defendant no. 1. The standard to prove negligence is that of the reasonable average. The law does not require of the professional man that he be a paragon combining the qualities of ploymath and prophet. The degree of skill and care required by a medical practitioner is so stated in Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 18 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth edition, Vol. 30, Para 35):-
"The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence, if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.
Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis, it must be shown:
a. That there is usual and normal practice. b. That the defendant has not adopted it; and c. That the course in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care."
12. In tort, it is enough for the defendant to show that the standard of care and the skill attained was that of ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 19 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 ordinary degree of professional skill. The fact that the defendant charged with negligence acted in accord with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge. A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. A mere accident is also not evidence of negligence.
13. In the present matter, it has been pleaded that Smt. Mala was given various injections and operation for abortion was not properly conducted and was done in a very unhygienic and unsafe manner, due to which her condition deteriorated and she got infected with HIV Infection. Though plaintiffs have pleaded so in the plaint, however, no expert evidence has been led to prove the medical negligence of the doctors of defendant no. 1. The plea of plaintiffs is that Smt. Mala had given birth to female child i.e. plaintiff no. 3 on 21.09.2005 and the said child is not suffering from HIV. It is common knowledge that HIV infection can be had to any person by 3-4 different modes. No expert witness has been examined by the plaintiffs to prove that Smt. Mala was infected with HIV either during the abortion conducted by the doctors of Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 20 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 defendant no. 1 on 07.03.2006 or because of the blood transfusion on 06.05.2006. The plaintiffs have not placed on record any blood report of HIV test of Smt. Mala prior to 07.03.2006 to prove that she was not suffering with any such disease prior to 07.03.2006. The HIV test in India is not mandatory and it is only with the consent and prior counseling, the said test can be done on an individual. The plaintiffs have not led any evidence to prove that defendants were negligent and careless in providing medical treatment and conducting operation for abortion of Smt. Mala on 07.03.2006. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of defendants and against plaintiffs.
ISSUE No. 2 and 3Whether blood supplied by defendant no. 3 was infected? OPP;
and Whether defendant no. 3 was careless and negligent when supplying blood to plaintiff no. 1 to be provided to the deceased? OPP Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 21 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09
14. The onus to prove these issues is on plaintiffs. As discussed above, plaintiffs have not examined any expert to prove that the blood which was transfused to deceased Mala was infected with HIV. It is common knowledge that in addition to transfusion of blood, there are other modes also of getting HIV infection. As per the Ex. PW1/K, there is a noting "HCV Negative" which was issued alongwith the blood. PW-1 who is the husband of deceased Mala had admitted that he also donated blood to his wife. At present, he is also HIV+. PW-1 has stated that he got himself tested for HIV on 01.06.2006 and was tested positive. No evidence of whatsoever manner has been brought by the plaintiffs to prove that Smt. Mala got infected with HIV due to blood transfusion. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of plaintiffs, both these issues are decided against plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE No. 5Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 22 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 Whether defendant no. 4 was negligent in performing any of the duties? If so, to what effect? OPP
15. The onus to prove this issue is again on plaintiffs. It is an admitted fact that deceased Mala was referred to RML Hospital after she was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS on 15.05.2006. PW-1 during his cross- examination admitted that doctors of RML never denied to provide the treatment of HIV to his wife. There was no deficiency in treatment in the hospital of his wife Mala. He has no complaint against RML Hospital. He does not know why he has made RML Hospital as party to the suit. He deposed that he has no claim against RML Hospital. PW-1 himself has admitted that there was no negligence on behalf of defendant no. 4 in performing any of the duties, hence, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no. 4 and against plaintiffs.
ISSUE No. 4Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 23 of 24New Case No. 59710/16 Date: 16.04.2019 Old Case No. 1/09 If the answer to any of the above issues is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and, if so, to what extent and which of the defendant would be liable to the same and to what extent?
16. In view of the findings of issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 5, plaintiffs are not entitled for any compensation from the defendants.
RELIEF
17. The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2019.04.18
16:28:16 -0400
Announced in open Kiran Gupta
Court on 16.04.2019 Additional District Judge-03
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. Medical Superintendent BJRM Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 24 of 24