1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26m DAY OF OCTOBER' PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIC_E",K_._L.MANJ';IfI25§TH..V A AND THE HON'BLE RFA.NQ.209 QE'j2oe4y%(MeN}e.ee BETWEEN: Dr.L0ganayak;f;" . H _ - Lady Medical Age: 57 yearS,__ " ..j A' A General Hospital, ' Robert-sonpet, KGF,:,_K01af'D'i_st;;iet. _ _' ...APPELLANT (By sri.K;x1:%Naré.s_ifi;yh'a;§.;e' Advocate} ' Sri.Rz-fiiaachandrappa, a SZ"0.:R£im~appa, 43 yeears, 2. " ..Kum.Manjula, .. I}/0.Ramachar1drappa, 15 years. -:2. Sri.Subramani, 11 years " S / 0.Ramachar1drappa, V 3 All are R/ at Dasamanapalli, Gudpalli Post, Kuppam Taluk, Andhra Pradesh State. Respondent 2 and 3 being minors __ _ s_*
Represented by their Guardian/Father ‘ ”
i.e., 1st Respondent. ht
(By Sri.C.Puttabi Raman, AdVoe;ete)?._’_’t ”
RFA filed u/s.96 of against t’J_’udgetnentV.t’
and decree dated: 14.8.2003 in’O.:S.:No.f29/ 96 on
the file of the Civil Jjdttdgtjth Kolar Gold Fields,
partly decreeing the for
for hearing this day,
V the following: —
‘ “aJUDGMENT
“Atppe1}a:j’t-Vts___’th.e defendant before the court below
‘ ;being..V’agg:.teV’e_d by the judgment and decree dated
“tows-2tot§’.3-3_ hztade in O.S.29/1996 passed by the own
Jud,geV”‘($rt]4’Z)n.) KGF, filed this regular first appeal.
£2”
3
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking daniagies of
?.3,00,000/- towards compensation of
Yashodarnnla and also for other reliefs.M__ln.:.tlie-plaint,_ it
the plaintiffs have contended J
the father of plaintiffs 2 and Thefirst ~’
one Yashodamnia about plaintiffs 2
and 3 were born wife of the
first plaintiff once However,
she does child and she
decidedmto which is against the
will ‘and she was telling the first
plaintiff that wanted to consult the lady Doctor in
‘that lt was further contended in the plaint that
plaintiff paid a sum of $1,200/«~ to his
Wife Yasliodarnma to bring provision for the house at
10.30 21.111. Accordingly, she went to the
l’~Alndersonpet, KGF for purchase of the provision for the
2 “house. On the same day, the first plaintiff left to his
/W
4
parents’ house at Dasarlahalli in Andhra Pradesh at
about 1.00 p.m. At about 10.00 p.In., theggfirst
plaintiffs father-in–1aw Gurappa came to
and told him that a constable from it
came to Soorahalli and informed first
wife Yashodarnnia has died at-‘tiae
Center, Kamasamudram After
hearing the news htevtiiiinmediately
rushed to the Primaty and got an
information?_: dne negligence and
cu1pa:b”le_’ part of the defendant, his
wife that of aborting the advanced
pregnancy: ., the plaint, the first plaintiff has
‘e.onteVnfided4A”that the defendant was working as a Lady
of the Primary Health Center at
and she had the habit of doing iilegal
“abortions collecting huge money. The plaintiff came to
that the defendant, who made an attempt to abort
V “the advanced pregnancy has caused death of his wife,
/W
which is due to negligence on the part of the defendant.
The defendant has acted without due care
and without good faith and caused the’_d’e:ath_=o’f’
plaintiffs wife. Further, one
was also present with the defendant
aborting his Wife at Prima13}’l”IrlVea1th the
defendant. The first:plain_tiff_ that he is
an agriculturist, he Support to his
family and children and
they have death has occurred
due of’ defendant. He further
allegesilthat a Complainant against the
defendant hefore VtheV’PSi, Kamasamudram. However, in
the defendant, the Police have not taken
the defendant. However, FIR has
been filedvsuppressing the real fact in Cr.No.87/1992,
und_erlSection 314 of IPC. The Sub–Inspector of Police
‘”wa’s”ftrying to conceal the correct facts. As a result of
“the death of his wife, the first plaintiff has lost his loving
A/W
wife and mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The first plaintiff
has suffered great mental torture and
future happy life solely on account of gross: negligence
on the part of the defendant inflrenderring’
service. The plaintiff issued legal 2 to4éthe’–..p
defendant calling upon her to the”dan1ages;:ofV?’.3.00 V
lakhs however, the untenable reply
and false and fI’iVO10t1V_S;’ said reply
notice. Hei_icej§-thelgplaintiffsiiilsouglit for damages of
$3.00 iakiqs fut,u:re’.’iinterest’;§
3. notice issued by the Civil
Judge {Sr.’£)n;},vthefrespondent entered appearance and
objections,-«denying the averments made in the
also denied the relationship between the
the deceased Yashodamma. She has
furtherlfdenied the marriage between the first plaintiff
V”L:V’_AAand:”p_Yashoda1nma and that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are
Wljorn to Yashodamma through him. It was further
/5″
7
contended that on 6-9-1992. one Yashodarnma
approached defendant at about 12.45 p.m. and she has
given the history that she left her husband five years
ago and that she was pregnant as a result offilnlicit
relation with somebody and that there wasgwan’
to cause termination of her pregnancy by..S_orneoi1e and,
that it was unsuccessful. The dyefendajnt’
that the deceased told the defendant
advised to go to Center,
Kamasamudrarn for tre’at_In_ei1t_. It was further
contended’ 1that,the d,efend_ant examined her and found
that weak and frail and also
ane;rnie..and l*:e_r”}”)’ulse was feeble. There was bleeding in
her genitaigorgans. Her speech was slow; she was
.gas__pfif1g'”‘and.f;’irresponsive to the painful. stimuli. It was
statedfithat the defendant gave necessary treatment.
V. *inspite” of her best efforts. Yashodarnma died. Death of
Vtvhedfashodainma was beyond the control of the Doctor.
2 was further stated that pregnancy of Yashodamma
/5*
8
was terminated by some unknown quack. the treatment
of the defendant was confined to the conditionjo.fp the
patient as stated above, there was no child
of Yashodamma when she appearech”~–he’fore._ hthfe.
defendant on 6-9-1992. Herg:Jdea:thj–,
shock as a result of pain; _b1eeding~ inflainination’; and’,
excitement. The defenda,nti’iiV.alsoVV cor:-tend’ed.’:’f§that she
possesses an of 20 pears in the
Medical DeparAt_ment;’,.slrie:–,h’a,s’ of deliveries
and she The Government
has meritorious service. In order
to harrn present case has been filed
see4l;ing.for.Vd’arna1gesV. The defendant further contended
that plaintiff filed a Complaint before the
Karnaia’k~a_St’at’e Consumer Redressal Forum, Bangalore
inl””—No-.,l3.25’71992 and the said petition has been
3 dismissed. Further. the COD has conducted an enquiry
lalnldtllsubmitted ‘B’ report. Hence, the suit filed by the
/9*
9
plaintiffs is not maintainable and sought for dismissal
of the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of
Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.) has framedfthlebZfdllcwingg_
(1) Whether the _ plaintiffs prcve. v’t’ttat’: 99
plaintiff
Yashodamrna, plaintiffs — and 3
were 0{i”‘_wedlock?
(ii) Whether. .. jvprove that
if the Wife of the first
9 mother of plaintiffs 2
9 *at1t”._1 on 6-9-1992 on account
“0fl__glfQSS negligence and culpable
negiect on the part of the defendant
aborting the advanced pregnancy
of Yashodamma’?
9′ .. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
claim compensation of $3.00 lakhs
from the defendant? and
A”
(iv) What decree or order’?
5. The plaintiffs in order to prove their c_a;§”e’,«l _
plaintiff examined himself as fiV\f’e”VV
other Witnesses as P.W.2 to the
documents as EX.P.1 tov’iV_EX_.P.$ll.’-..l’On
defendant, she exarninedV_herse1f_as..{)tW.1J}and got
marked the doeu.men’t–
6. ,’l-‘he_Conrt3§:.beleviév;._vlatter-cvdnsidering the oral and
docuriientlaryvjeiiideriee=.1e’t__lin by the parties held issue
Nos.1 ~.theblaifirmative and issue No.3 partly
Consequently decreed the suit in part by its
jtrdgrIi’eiit;’ar:id-decree dated 14–8-2003 holding that the
entitled for the damages of Rs.55,800/–
and directed the defendant to pay the said amount
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till
.,I5ayInent.
/4*
7. T he appellant being aggrieved by the
and decree dated 14~»8-2003 made in
preferred this appeal.
8. Sri.K.V.Narasimhan,” .learnedv~ cc=…1_ns.e1fjappcarings. ‘
for the appellant contendedwthatvgp the ” j–t1dginent and
decree passed by the contraxy to law
and material eikidencelllon and unsustainable
in law. there is no negligence
on the aippellarit in treating the deceased
Yashodarrnna. ‘fashodamma was very weak and
she; gave lthalt. she was aborted from some quack
“ayvas bleeding in her genital organs, the
treatment to the patient. however
her condition was not improved due to the constant
it bleeding. She has not concentrated to find out whether
foetiis is present or not in the uterus. Further, the first
it ‘appellant is not the husband of the deceased, hence the
A”
£2
suit filed by the plaintiffs is ‘not maintainable. The
appellant has further contended that she has perihrtned
the duty as a Doctor and tried to protect the~~–.ife:
said Yashodarnma, since she was very_..we’ak*and sh”e._
came to the Primary Health CI;:’ent:e:gV’V1aStV”‘%{é.gél;
inspite of the best treatmen’t,_her lifel’could»not ;
Hence the liability cannot onllthe:_appefllant and
appellant is not liablefftoi “lOn these
grounds sought and
decree by allowing this
9. the “Sri. Pattabi Ranian, learned
counsel appe-agrirlg for the respondents 1 to 3 contended
no irregularity or illegality in the judgment
::passed by the court below in granting
damages to the death of Yashodamma. The court
V below framed necessary issues after examining the oral
l”‘an’d’:documentary evidence of the parties. The finding
V
E3
has been given Correctly and the same is not liable to be
interfered with by this Hon*ble Court and souigiit for
dismissal of the appeal by upholding the
decree passed by the court below.
10. We have carefully gone _t_h.rough;’.th’e::’g;fgurrien-tsff
addressed by the Iearned counsel forthe
oral and documentary evideric-e_ of
11. It is not in dispute that—-th’e. saigd Yas’i1vo.da..:’hma died
on 6-9-1992 in the The first
plaintiff hast?’::ont3end.eVd«–..that ‘ifashodamma was his wife
and p1’ai.r1tifyfs’2._ Children of Yashodamrna.
H0i:V€’t'(3r, _ defendant denied the same stating
that. deoeasedfffinformed the defendant that she has
about 20 years back, inspite of the
sarne,v–._’sh’e:”‘became pregnant by iilicit reiationship and
it rrsought” for abortion.
J”
14
12. In order to prove the relationship of the deceased.
the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.;i=._ and
deposed that their marriage took place
back. Due to their wedlock, plaintiffs 2 1
They were living in Soorahalli and their ‘names’ were’a1so
included in the Voter’s list. _Thelfi.rs’t..plaintiiff:conte.ndedvL
that on 6-9~»1992, he paid 1,22:0(jl/– to V
Yashodamrna, to house at about
10.30 am. from the he Went
to his house in Andhra
Pradesh, _* afrvay from Soorahalli. At
aboutf’1_0.00l night, his father-in–law
Guijappa the death of the Yashodamma.
he had been to the Primary Health Center.
._In’_’_thev4:Po_stwAl.l’V;iViortem Report, name of the first plaintiff
was shovvii as husband of the deceased Yashodamma.
V. *FL1.rthVe’r. in the FIR filed by the Police also name of the
plaintiff was mentioned as husband of the
if “deceased.
At
13. In support of his contention, the first plaintiitifhas
examined the mother of Yashodamma Smt_.;ivianga:rrirna
W/o. Gurappa as P.W.4. P.W.4
admitted that the first piaintiif ‘4’so:n}i’n¥ia’:w:
plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the .<ii1i__ldrei'1'r.ioorn
and Yashodamma. In the she has
denied the suggestion_..fm_acie t–hei.:de_fendant that the
first piaintiff left. the years prior to
the death another girl by
name ,Cl1in_r.i£:ki{a;.; "
14». Further’, it has seen Yashodamma going to
I–Igea1t}1″”Cv–…nter at about 11.00 am. on the said
I diate, “‘P:_fVV;’3.’i1as also stated that he was a NSC agent.
‘While back from the Hotel, he had seen
Yashodarrirna and she informed that she is going to the
“‘j”_h.osjp;ita1 for treatment. Nothing contrary has been
elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3. Further
in”
16
P.W.5 and 6 are residents of Soorahalli village and they
have deposed that the first plaintiff is the husband of
Yashodamma and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are
the first plaintiff and Yashodamma.
examination of these witnesses, nothing ’33h_as
been elicited. Further in i.’ei,f’in
report, name of the first has ‘been ‘rnenitioned as
husband of Yashodamma. 3. Voters list of
Soorahalli village, of i’ii*st’*:p1-aintiff has been
mentionedas lfiu’s§:w.anq€ Hence, it is
eleari_:fthat’_A.’have proved by cogent evidence
that plaintiff of Yashodarnma.
“regard to the second issue is concerned, first
that his wife was hale and health. On
6–fg..19iQ2;v’:””he paid ‘€11,200/– to get provision from
V. :A11..derVs’onpet and she left for Andersonpet at 10.30 am.
7l’hoi1gh Yashodamma expressed her dissatisfaction
‘ it “towards the third child, she informed the plaintiff that
f”
:7
she would consult the Doctor since it is in the advanced
stage, which is against the wishes of the plaintiff. At
about 10.00 p.m. the father«~in-law of the
informed the death of his wife at Primary
due to the abortion. Immedijately,’
Primary Health Center and hfouind his’: ffwifeg
Yashodarnrna died. The defendant i’n._h’erV-Zstatement of
objections has c0.nt’e_nded ashodamma was
aborted by some other came to the
Primary treatment and at that
timeyshe and anemic; her pulse was
feeble yygaspfing; “has stated that there was no
chi_ld”in her v.r0m’b and ‘she has only given treatment and
f I-Iuovvever, P.W.2 the Doctor who has
I fthe:”Post Mortern has clearly reported that the
death..__has«:”‘been caused due to the attempt to abort the
..a,dvan’ced pregnancy. The deceased Yashodarnma is
about 32 years. On opening the body, it was
if ” “found that the Uterus was intact and enlarged and
Ad
E8
contains a dead male foetus about 17 Crns in length.
attached to the uterus. Hence, it is clear that the
deceased Yashodamrna was not aborted
and she died during the course of abortion:-._: V ll” it
16. The defendant in sL3p_port”of7her case “eiKa1″ni”ned¢
herself as D.W.l and deposediithat at a.rn.,l
the deceased clinic and
nobody has come ;vwl-as bleeding and
she was weai;,,, ttg Dtte ‘illicitiilrelation she had
becorne “died within 10 minutes of giving
treatinent “she lodged a Complaint to the
poljigce, She ‘-has further deposed that the deceased was
aborted in some other place, hence, the
. aborting her does not arise. In
the crosseelxainination she has stated that she has not
it ilexainined the deceased whether she was pregnant or
At one stage she states that when the deceased
it “Yashodamma came to the clinic she was alone in the
/3”
hospital and at another stage, she states that…__while
treating the deceased Narayanamma and Yashodarrima
Group–D employees were present.
constant bleeding, steroid was~-given.’ the’b.l0o–d ‘
was not available, blood was not
deposed that she has not o1itpati’en_t= that
day. The deposition” to show
that she has not taken Yashodamma.
The statements’rnadew I statement runs
contrary ito Therefore, it is
taken proper care and
caution’ patient, or giving proper
treatment. V’1″he’defendant being a Doctor must examine
patient can be aborted or not at this
A The defendant in her evidence deposed
that the ‘deceased might have been aborted two days
earlierf’ Hence, the evidence on record clearly shows
“thlatj the defendant was negligent in attempting to abort
the patient and thereby caused the death of the patient.
A”
20
Further, defendant has also not examined another
employee i.e. ANM Working in the Primary Heai-‘th-Center
on this behaif.
17. The specific case of the::cA_P.W.4izfiv
employees Narayananima’ -.___andV”e,Yasho–iarr;ma jwereii»
present at the time of treatrrient. none of the
employees working Center were
examined. The N1,’:PfS\’?:.. Cigrimaxy Health
Center wotiift and treatment
will of the Doctor. None of
the oi Ifiiealth Center were examined.
Hence, vvev’id_ence’«…u9of the defendant cannot be
The ‘cot:-1<*t"be1ow taking into consideration all
these of the matter has found that
died due to the negligence on the part of
the defvedndant.
“18. We have re–exan1ined the matter once again and
“found that the appellant has not made out any case to
/ér”
21
take contrary view, though, a meager sum of ?.5.5″,=.-5300/–
was awarded by the court below.
want to interfere with the judgment
by the court below. Hence, we Itjase’t11e”fo1IQ’wir1g»
e .Q1;3_:)eR’ ‘- V
The appeal fileciiby the–«2;1.5pe’i}a”nt is’ divsmigissed.