Delhi District Court
Ganga Ram Hospital vs Abdul Basit on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-07, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. : 1204/20
CNR No. : DLCT03-002808-2020
DATE OF DECISION : 02.04.2026
PRESIDING OFFICER: Mr. SAHIL GUPTA
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi - 110060
Through its A.R. Shri H.S. Bhalla.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Abdul Basit
S/o Shri Abdul Wahab,
R/o 6390, Gali Ishwari Prasad, Bara Hindu Rao,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi - 110006
Mob.: 9350570474/9212671838
.........Defendant
DATE OF INSTT: 24.09.2020
DATE RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT: 10.02.2026
Argued by:
(a) Sh. Subhash Kumar, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
(b) Ms. Seema Khatri, Ld. counsel for defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,78,998/- ALONG WITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 18% AND
COSTS OF THE SUIT.
CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 1 / 10
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 1,78,998/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a reputed hospital, run by Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society and Mr. H.S. Bhalla has been authorised by the hospital society vide revolution dt. 23.10.2007. That the defendant is the son of deceased patient, namely Shri Abdul Wahab who was admitted in the plaintiff hospital on 22.12.18 and unfortunately, expired on 30.12.18. That the total expenditure on the medical treatment of the father of the defendant was ₹4,78,997/-, out of which, the defendant had deposited ₹2,99,999/- and an amount of ₹1,78,998/- is due in respect of the treatment provided to the father of the defendant. That the defendant showed his inability to make the payment of the balance amount and requested for one month time to make the balance payment, but the defendant failed to pay the amount. That a legal notice dated 23.03.19 was sent to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the balance amount, but despite the service of the notice, the defendant did not make any payment. The plaintiff has further submitted that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Hence, the present suit.
3. The defendant, in its written statement, submitted that the father of the defendant had been taking treatment of coronary artery disease from the plaintiff Hospital for the last three years CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 2 / 10 under Dr. Ashwani Mehta. That on 29.10.18, the father of the defendant was operated and discharged after three days, but on 22.12.18, the father of the defendant was again admitted to the plaintiff's hospital with the same problem and he was treated by Dr. Ashwani Mehta. That the doctor reported to the defendant that the patient was okay, but after sometime, on examination by Dr. Ashwini Mehta, the defendant was forcefully impressed upon by the doctor to put the stent in the artery and also suggested that the father of defendant be shifted to general ward. Also, despite the objections by the defendant, the doctor placed an artificial urinary tube/bag in the patient. That the father of the defendant had a kidney problem, and Doctor continued with the treatment of the heart and plantation of stent and was negligent in conduct of treatment of the heart. The defendant was forced to pay the bill which was exorbitant despite the deficiency in services provided by the hospital and due to negligence on part of the plaintiff hospital, the defendant lost his father.
4. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the contentions of the written statement filed by defendant have been denied and the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
5. Hence, pertinent question to be decided in the present case is:
A. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-
joinder and non-joiner of necessary parties? OPD B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ₹1,78,998/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realisation CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 3 / 10 against the defendant? OPP C. Relief
6. To prove its case, the AR of the plaintiff hospital namely Mr. H.S. Bhalla has examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has relied upon following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) : Minutes dt. 04.08.22.
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) : Article and memorandum.
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 : Extract of resolution.
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) : Admission and discharge record.
(v) Mark A : Copy of driving license of defendant.
(vi) Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) : Copy of undertaking at the time
of admission.
(vii) Mark B : Copy of bill.
(viii) Ex.PW1/6A : Date wise bill of patient.
(ix) Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) : Death summary of patient.
(x) Mark C : Copy of legal notice dated 16.03.22.
(xi) Mark D : Copy of reply dated 23.03.19.
(xii) Ex.PW1/10 : Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence
Act.
7. PW-1 was cross examined at length on 06.11.23 and 03.01.24 and was discharged on the same day.
8. PE was subsequently closed on 24.10.24 and matter was put for DE.
CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 4 / 10
9. The defendant examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW-1/A wherein he reiterated the averments made in the present plaint. The same are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
10. DW-1 was cross examined at length on 10.06.25 and was discharged on the same day.
11. DW-2 namely Dr. Ashwani Mehta was examined as a summoned witness who relied upon the document Ex. DW2/1. The witness was cross examined and discharged on 22.11.25.
12. DE was subsequently closed on the same day, and the matter was put up for final arguments.
13. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of both the parties and perused the record.
Issue No. B - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ₹1,78,998/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realisation against the defendant? OPP
14. The onus to prove the issue was on the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the defendant was admitted in the plaintiff hospital on 22.12.18 and unfortunately, expired on 30.12.18 and the total expenditure on the medical treatment of the father of the defendant was ₹4,78,997/-, out of which, the defendant had deposited ₹2,99,999/- and an amount of CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 5 / 10 ₹1,78,998/- is due in respect of the treatment provided to the father of the defendant.
PW1, during the cross examination, deposed that in case of the death of the patient, his LR or the person who had admitted the patient in the hospital or had given undertaking to pay the bill is liable for the expenses. PW1 deposed that the admission record bears the signatures of the defendant at point A, B and C and denied the suggestion that the signatures at point A and B are the signatures of the other legal heir of the deceased patient. PW1 admitted that the other legal heirs of the deceased are not made as a party in the present suit, but also deposed that since the defendant had given an undertaking Ex. PW1/5 to authorise the hospital to give treatment to the patient, therefore, the defendant was made a party. The witness further deposed that no letter of authority had been given by the patient for credit as mentioned in Ex. PW1/5 at page 17 at point A. PW1 also deposed that the defendant orally requested for one month time to make the payment in front of the witness, billing in charge and DMS on duty. The witness denied the suggestion that the patient passed away due to the wrong treatment given by Dr. Ashwini Mehta and plaintiff hospital is liable to compensate the defendant and his family.
15. On the contrary, the defendant deposed in his evidence affidavit that the father of the defendant had been taking treatment of coronary artery disease from the plaintiff hospital for the last three years under Dr. Ashwani Mehta and the father of the defendant died due to the wrong treatment given by Dr. Ashwani Mehta.
CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 6 / 10 DW1, during the cross-examination, admitted that he got his father admitted in hospital and also signed the admission form. DW1 also admitted that he got his father admitted in the plaintiff's hospital, three times, and he had made the payment of the bills raised by the plaintiff. The witness relied upon the document Mark A also exhibited as Ex. DW2/1 to prove that Dr. Ashwani Mehta had suggested the patient to be shifted in general ward. The witness admitted his signatures at point C of the pre- admission Record and also admitted having signed the document Ex. PW1/5 at point A. DW1 also admitted that he has not filed any criminal complaint or civil case against the plaintiff hospital. Lastly, the witness admitted that he has not filed any document which shows negligence or improper treatment given by the doctors and has also not filed any medical opinion of any board in respect of the treatment given to his father.
16. The plaintiff, in the present suit, has relied upon the document Ex. PW-1/4 which is the admission/discharge record, duly signed by the defendant as the representative of the patient in capacity of his son. Perusal of the document Ex. PW-1/4 reveals that the defendant had authorised the hospital to perform any operation / treatment as deemed advisable by the hospital and undertook the risk and further admitted his responsibility for making full payment at the time of the discharge from the hospital. Further, the defendant admitted his signatures at point C of the pre-admission record Ex. PW1/5 and also admitted having signed the document Ex. PW1/5 at point 'A'. The plaintiff Hospital has also filed the date wise bill of the patient which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/6A reflecting the total bill in the amount of CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 7 / 10 ₹4,78,997/-, out of which, the defendant had paid ₹2,99,999/- and the balance amount is shown as Rs. 1,78,998/-. The defendant by signing the admission record Ex. PW1/4, acknowledged the terms and conditions that the hospital did not grant any credit to any patient unless a letter of authority, from the agency or party responsible for payment, is received before the patient leaves the hospital. The plaintiff has also filed the death summary of the patient which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/7 enumerating the diagnosis and treatment given to the patient ultimately resulting in the death of the patient.
17. The only defence taken by the defendant is that the father of the defendant died due to the wrong treatment given by the doctor, namely Dr. Ashwani Mehta. The onus to prove this fact was upon the defendant. The defendant has failed to bring on record any documents/evidence to prove that the hospital was negligent in the treatment of the patient and had given the wrong treatment to the patient. The defendant, during the cross- examination, admitted that he has not filed any document which shows negligence or improper treatment given by the doctors and has also not filed any medical opinion of any board in respect of the treatment given to his father. The defendant further admitted that he has not filed any criminal complaint or civil case against the plaintiff hospital regarding the wrong treatment alleged to have been given by the hospital. The defendant has relied only upon the document Ex. DW2/1 to prove that Dr. Ashwani Mehta had suggested the patient to be shifted in general ward. Perusal of the document Ex. DW2/1 reveals that the defendant had requested the hospital to transfer the patient in general ward and CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 8 / 10 subsequent to the request, the doctor forwarded the letter, and the patient was transferred to the general ward. The defendant cannot hold that hospital accountable when the patient was shifted to the general ward on the request of the defendant.
18. Since the defendant has miserably failed to prove his case, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. A - Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis- joinder and non-joiner of necessary parties? OPD
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. It is submitted by the defendant that other than the defendant, his two other brothers had also signed the admission form and are the legal representatives of the deceased patient, who were not made parties to the present suit. The defendant has admitted his signatures on admission/discharge record Ex. PW1/4, signed in capacity of the son of the patient and has taken responsibility for making full payment at the time of discharge from the hospital. Since the defendant, by signing the document, has personally undertaken to pay for the medical expenses of the patient/his father, the defendant cannot take the defence that the others LRs of the deceased patient were not made party in the present suit. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
20. Plaintiff has also claimed interest @18 % per annum on the decretal amount and the cost of legal fees. However, CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 9 / 10 considering the prevailing market conditions, it is not considered equitable to grant this high rate of interest. Accordingly, simple interest @ 9% per annum is considered reasonable and equitable.
21. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed as under:
a) A decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,78,998/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, along with pendentelite and future simple interest @ 9% p.a.
b) Costs of the suit also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SAHIL
SAHIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02
15:17:40
+0530
Announced in the open Court SAHIL GUPTA
Dated : 02.04.2026 Civil Judge -07 (Central)
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
Note: This judgment contains 10 (Ten) pages and each page has been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.02 15:17:45 +0530 SAHIL GUPTA Civil Judge -07 (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Dated : 02.04.2026 CS SCJ No. : 1204/20 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Abdul Basit Page no. 10 / 10