Karnataka High Court
R Venkatesh Kumar vs M. S. Ramaiah Hospital on 28 May, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1723 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
R. VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O LATE V.RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.A/62,
SECTOR II, H.M.T. COLONY,
JALAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 013.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.VENKATESH KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1 . M. S. RAMAIAH HOSPITAL
NEW BEL ROAD,
M.S.RAMAIAH NAGAR,
MSIRT POST,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
REPRESENTED BY HOD,
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY.
2 . DR. PRADEEP
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT,
M.S.RAMAIAH HOSPITAL,
NEW BEL ROAD,
2
M.S.RAMAIAH NAGAR,
MSIRT POST,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
3 . NAGALAKSHMI
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.12/1, 6TH BLOCK,
YADIYUR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 082.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER
DATED:22/03/2017)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96
AND ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2016 PASSED IN OS
NO.3883/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 15), BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2024 THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 27.03.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.05.2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1(a) and 2 of CPC for setting aside the judgment passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.3883/2011 vide judgment dated 04-01-2016.
2. Heard the arguments of appellant-party in person and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The appellant was plaintiff and respondents were defendants before the Trial Court. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is an employee of HMT Ltd. CSD and have been serving for the company for more than 23 years. On 17-06- 2005, he suffered some illness, hence, he went to the HMT 4 Hospital. After the preliminary check up, the doctor at HMT Hospital referred the appellant-plaintiff to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital on the same day with a note that the appellant is suffering from tiredness. With the said note along with defendant No.3, appellant visited respondent No.1-Hospital on the same day. Defendant No.3 registered the name of the plaintiff and straightaway took him to psychiatry department. The plaintiff after waiting for some time went for searching his wife and he found her in the Psychiatry Department with defendant No.2-the doctor-Psychiatrist. On being enquired as to why the plaintiff was being treated in the Psychiatry Department, the Doctor informed the plaintiff that the general check up will also be done here and after preliminary enquiry, the doctor advised the plaintiff to get admit in the hospital for treatment. The plaintiff having no idea of the reason for tiredness got admitted to the hospital as an in patient and was discharged from the hospital after 3 days and as per the instructions of the doctor, the appellant regularly visited the hospital for further check up and also took the medicines and injections 5 prescribed by the doctor. He further contended that the plaintiff's relationship with his wife was not in good terms. Some cases were filed by her and counter case also filed by him. During the year 2006, the appellant came across with a copy of certificate issued by defendant No.2 certifying that the appellant is suffering from mental disorder viz., 'Delusional Disorder'. The primary symptoms of the disorder are suspicious in nature of the patient. The said conclusion was arrived by the doctor based upon the statement of the wife of the plaintiff. On the statement made by defendant No.3, the Hospital Authorities maintained the case history in their hospital. Defendant No.2 issued certificates on 30.06.2005, 25.04.2006, 15.06.2006 and 24.07.2006 stating that the plaintiff is suffering from Delusional Disorder. The said certificates were issued by the doctor on the instructions of defendant No.3 who is the wife of the plaintiff. Being felt aggrieved by such inaction from the hospital, the plaintiff approached the Consumer Forum seeking compensation, but the Consumer Forum rejected the plea of the plaintiff. During pendency of the matter 6 before the Consumer Forum, defendant No.2 has lead defence evidence and has deposed that he came to know that the statement was made by defendant No.3. Due to the act of the doctor employed by the defendant No.1, plaintiff suffered severe jolt to his reputation in working place as well as in the Society in general. By taking advantage of the certificate issued by defendant No.2, the wife of the plaintiff who is defendant No.3 made derogatory remarks among the kith and kins and relatives. Hence, the plaintiff was put into mental trauma and he was unable to move in the Society.
5. Appellant-party in person further alleged that he has filed a divorce petition against the defendant No.3 in M.C.No.1611/2006. The wife contested the matter and Family Court passed the decree of divorce, but the defendant No.3 not challenged the same which was attained finality. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for the damage caused to the plaintiff. Hence, he issued legal notice for seeking damages. But they have given untenable reply. Hence, he has approached the Court by filing the suit and 7 prayed for decree. Defendant No.3 placed ex-parte. Defendant Nos.1 and 2-the Hospital as well as doctor appeared through the counsel. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and also barred by the limitation. The plaintiff filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging the negligence on the part of the defendant-hospital which came to be dismissed on 20.11.2006. The plaintiff also preferred an appeal before the Consumer Redressal Commission which also came to be dismissed. The defendant has taken specific contention that the plaintiff came the psychiatric illness on 17.06.2005 to the hospital and the plaintiff complained abnormal behaviour for two to three years and the problem was diagnosed as 'Delusional disorder'. The plaintiff is known case of PPRP, his lower limb has been affected and presently, he is walking with clippers. The plaintiff himself voluntarily got admitted in the hospital and got treatment for three days. Thereafter, he also came up for follow up treatment on 04.07.2005, 18.07.2005 and 08.08.2005 and taken maximum treatment for 1½ months. 8 He has received injections, tablets which were prescribed by the doctor and thereafter, he was dropped out of the treatment and there was no negligence in diagnosing the problem. During his stay in the hospital, he was continuously monitored by the doctors while in the hospital, best possible treatment was given to him for restoring his health and he further contended that defendant No.1 has further contended that their ignorance of the relationship between the patient and defendant No.3, divorce case also filed and decreeing the divorce case and denied that the wife of the plaintiff circulated the false certificate issued by defendant No.2 and denied all other awareness and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based upon the pleadings, the Trial Court framed following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants caused damage or loss to the reputation and image of the plaintiff with malicious intention as alleged?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakhs by way of damages from the defendants 9 No.1 and 2 jointly and severally as sought for?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled for permanent injunction to
restrain the defendants from issuing false certificates about the plaintiff as prayed?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to tender on unconditional apology as prayed?
5) What Order or Decree?"
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and marked 16 documents and on behalf of the defendant, defendant No.2 examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. After hearing the arguments of the plaintiff-party in person, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and finally, dismissed the suit.
Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-appellant is before this Court.
7. The appellant have filed written submissions contending that he has filed suit for decreeing the suit 10 directing defendant to pay Rs.8 lakhs for damages and permanent injunction from issuing any false certificates about the appellant and also direct the respondents to tender unconditional apology and further contended that the respondent caused damage to the reputation and image of the appellant with malicious intention and thereby, the appellant proved that he is entitled for damage of Rs.8 lakhs from defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also entitled for permanent injunction. He has got marked 16 documents and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.1. Defendant No.2 examined as D.W.1, he has marked Ex.D.1. The complaint filed before the Consumer Court was marked in the cross examination. The evidence of DW.1 clearly discloses that they have not produced any documents to show that the appellant is suffering from delusional disorder. Though he has stated in the evidence, the respondent No.1- hospital examined the appellant but they have not examined and their names have not been whispered in the court, therefore the evidence of DW.1 is not trustworthy and not believable. The medical records, case sheet maintained by 11 respondent No.1 not been produced to show that the appellant is suffering from delusional disorder. The appellant has proved his case by both documentary and oral. He has further contended that the team of doctors have not been examined in support of their case, no second opinion has been taken before issuing medical certificates. The suit cannot be dismissed even though there was proceeding before the Consumer Court. Respondent No.2 left the job long back, but respondent No.1 not brought to the notice of the court. Respondent No.2 issued four to five false certificates to third respondent, she is misusing it, therefore prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the dismissal of the suit.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the plaintiff failed to prove the medical certificate issued was false. The petition filed by him before the Consumer Forum is Ex.D.1 where the plaintiff failed to obtain any relief either in the consumer forum or in the appeal which was attained finality. There is 12 no negligence or no wrong treatment given by the hospital, Ex.P5, the three certificates were not proved to be false and there was no publication of the medical certificate in the paper publication in order to show his reputation was damaged. Ex.P.5 produced by himself which is not produced by the respondent No.3 in any court of law or in the newspaper. Absolutely there is no damage caused to the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove, how he has suffered his reputation and loss. The said certificate was not used by the respondent No.3 in the Court for the plaintiff which is not a false certificate, therefore prayed for dismissing the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the point that arises from my consideration are:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that due to issuance of the medical certificates by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the defendant No.3 which caused damage to his reputation ?13
(2) Whether the appellant also proves that the said certificates were issued by the defendant No.2 with an intention to damage the image of the plaintiff and on the say of the defendant No.3?
(3) Whether he is entitled for damages of Rs.8.00 Lakhs by way of damages from defendant Nos.1 and 2 and entitled for injunction as sought for?
(3) Whether the judgment of the Trial Court call for interference?"
10. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that he was referred to the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital by their company hospital on 17-06-2005 where he went along with his wife who is defendant No.3 and he was taken to psychiatric department and treated for three days as inpatient and discharged and later came to know that his wife-defendant No.3 shown the medical certificate issued by the defendant No.2 stating that the appellant is having mental disorder of devolution disorder and she has shown to the kith and kins and relatives and thereby his reputation was damaged. He is 14 not suffering from any mental disorder, but a false certificate has been issued by the defendant No.2 at the instance of the defendant No.3 who is the wife of the plaintiff. He has examined as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents. The plaintiff has deposed in his evidence in respect of averments made by him in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the letter issued by the employer of HMT regarding seeking information through RTI. Ex.P.2 is a covering letter of Public Information Officer. Ex.P.3 is the detailed information given by the RTI Officer. Exs.P.1 and 2 are not relevant as Ex.P.3 is the information issued by the HMT as the said information is available in their HMT Hospital. As per information No.3 at Ex.P.3, which reveals as per the hospital records, the plaintiff has not approached the hospital for any psychiatric/mental problem which reveals he has not approached the HMT hospital for mental disorder etc. However, information No.4 reveals, the HMT hospital provides general/basic treatment for HMT employees and their family dependents. All cases requiring specialized treatment, they refer to major/panel hospital. Accordingly, 15 in this case, the appellant was referred to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. However, as per the information No.5 at Ex.P.3, the HMT Hospital Authorities have not received any feedback from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital regarding treatment of the plaintiff which reveals after taking treatment in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, the plaintiff did not go back to the HMT hospital for having taken treatment in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital whatsoever and he was got admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital for treatment and as per Ex.P.5 which are three medical certificates where defendant No.2 issued the said certificates stating that the plaintiff is suffering from delusional disorder and there is no dispute that the respondent No.2 issued the certificates stating that the appellant-plaintiff is suffering from delusional disorder. Ex.P.6 is the judgment in M.C. petition filed for obtaining divorce in M.C.No.1611/2006 filed by him against the respondent which was decreed. Even in the said MC judgment, there is no reference that the respondent No.2 filed any M.C case against the appellant on the ground of his mental disorder. Ex.P.8 is the school receipt of the child; 16 Ex.P.9 is the affidavit of D.W.1 given in consumer case No.2140/2006 and based upon the said evidence of D.W.1, his consumer dispute case was dismissed and appeal also dismissed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and there is no dispute in this regard. Ex.P.10 is the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by respondent No.3 i.e., wife of the appellant under the D.V. Act seeking maintenance. Ex.P.11 document filed pertaining to the Tahsildar, North Taluk Yelahanka which is not relevant to this case. Ex.P.12 is the residential school receipt. Ex.P.13 is the summons issued by the Child Welfare Committee to the appellant for taking care of the child belongs to the appellant. Ex.P.14-a complaint made by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Police against his wife. Ex.P.15 is a courier receipts. Ex.P.16 is the letter addressed by the plaintiff to Public Information Officer, HMT seeking information under the RTI Act which was given by the HMT authorities as per Ex.P.3.
11. On perusal of the evidence, except Ex.P.3, all other documents are not relevant and the case of the 17 plaintiff is that DW.2 issued the false certificate stating that he is having mental disorder. In order to show the certificate is false certificate, the plaintiff not examined any other doctors or psychiatrists by taking any treatment or by getting second opinion in order to show this document was false document and when the plaintiff himself failed to prove his case that he is not suffering from mental disorder and dilution disorder and the certificate is false, then the question of decreeing the suit does not arise. Even otherwise, the respondent No.3 not produced the certificate or published in any news paper or damaged the plaintiff's reputation and even the plaintiff not summoned the case sheet from the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital before the Court. Therefore, once the plaintiff himself failed to prove, the question of disproving the case of the plaintiff by the defendant does not arise. Even otherwise, he himself filed M.C. petition against the wife and obtained divorce on the ground of cruelty but she has not filed any matrimonial case against him on the ground that he is suffering from mental disorder. Such being the case, the certificate was not 18 misused by defendant No.3 against him for any wrongful gain or caused wrongful loss to him. The employer also not removed him from service on the ground of mental disorder and no other witnesses examined by the plaintiff to show the reputation of the plaintiff has been tarnished by the defendant as per the evidence of the defendant. As per the treatment taken by him in the hospital, the certificate was issued and from the said certificate, there is no loss or harm caused to the plaintiff and there is no evidence to show that the said certificate damaged the reputation in the Society. These documents were not published and not a part of the M.C. case or matrimonial case or D.V. Act case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-party in person and the evidence of PW.1 not impeached by the defendant cross examination is not arise. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also not misused the certificate and tarnished any image of the plaintiff.
12. Therefore, on careful reading of the evidence on record, absolutely there is no case made out by the plaintiff 19 to show that his reputation was damaged or tarnished by defendant Nos.1 to 3 by using Ex.P.5 and there is nothing produced on record to show that Ex.P.5 was a false document issued by defendant No.2. Though he has made an allegation that defendant No.3-wife took him to the psychiatry department etc. but on perusal of the written statement, he has treated in the hospital for 3 days from 17-06-2005 till 20-06-2005. Thereafter, he went for the follow up treatments on 04-07-2005, 18-07-2005 and 08- 05-2005 for one and half months. During that time, he has not expressed any dissatisfaction. Thereafter, he left for treatment. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has taken treatment in some other psychiatric hospital or any psychiatrist from any specialized hospital like NIMHANS to show that he is not suffering from any mental disorder as stated in Ex.P.5. Such being the case, the question of believing the evidence of PW.1 does not arise and his evidence is not sufficient for proving the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, I answered the point Nos.1 and 2 against the appellant- plaintiff. On perusal of the judgment of the Trial 20 Court, the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record in detail, passed the judgment by dismissing the suit. There is nothing to interfere by this court in this appeal. Therefore, I am of the view, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant- party in person is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB CT:SK