Decided on-: May 10, 1996
Bench-: Hon’ble J. Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble J. S. Saghir Ahmad
Judgement-: Justice S. Saghir Ahmad
FACTS
In the case of Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel and others, Mr. Pramod Verma fell ill on July 4, 1992. Consulting Dr. Ashwin Patel, a registered homeopathic physician, Mr. Verma was initially diagnosed with viral fever and later treated for typhoid. Dr. Patel prescribed allopathic medicines without identifying the cause. The treatment failed, leading to Mr. Verma's admission to Sanjeevani Maternity and General Nursing Home under Dr. Rajeev Warty on July 12, 1992. Despite efforts, Mr. Verma was transferred unconscious to Hinduja Hospital on July 14, 1992, where he passed away approximately four and a half hours later at the age of 35.
At the time of his death, Mr. Verma, a Sales Manager at M/s Encore Marketing P. Ltd. in Bombay, earned a monthly salary of Rs. 5700. As the primary financial supporter of his family (wife, two children, and parents), his demise had significant consequences.
ISSUE
Whether there was a breach of duty and deficiency in services by both respondents in the treatment of Mr. Pramod Verma and if these actions amounted to negligence.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court determined that the health of Mr. Pramod Verma had significantly deteriorated due to actions of Respondent 1 before admission to Respondent 2’s Nursing Home. The Court did not proceed against Respondent 2, as Mr. Verma passed away before a conclusive diagnosis.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Respondent 1 was unauthorized to practice allopathy under the Bombay Homeopathic Practitioners’ Act, 1959. The Court found actionable negligence in Respondent 1’s decision to administer allopathic medicines without the required qualifications, concluding a breach of duty and deficiency in services.
Negligence, defined as a breach of duty resulting in consequential damages, involves a legal duty, breach of duty, and consequential damages. Respondent 1 lacked the necessary qualification for allopathy, violating the established legal framework.
Respondent 1's advice for oral tests, contrary to customary conduct, violated standards set by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965. The court held him liable for negligence per se, citing the maxim sic utere tuo alienum non loedas. Referring to Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, the court noted Respondent 1’s failure to follow duties, leading to a deficiency in services. Respondent 1 was found liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the judgment was forwarded to medical councils for appropriate action. Recognizing the appellant’s loss, the court ordered Respondent 1 to pay compensation of 3 lakhs and specified Rs. 30,000 as the appellant’s cost.
Comments