{"id":203806,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-22T06:21:33","modified_gmt":"2017-10-22T00:51:33","slug":"dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 26m DAY OF OCTOBER'\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUSTIC_E\",K_._L.MANJ';IfI25\u00a7TH..V   A\n\nAND \nTHE HON'BLE  \nRFA.NQ.209 QE'j2oe4y%(MeN}e.ee \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nDr.L0ganayak;f;\"  . H  _  - \n\nLady Medical       \n\nAge: 57 yearS,__  \" ..j A'   A\n\nGeneral Hospital,  '\n\nRobert-sonpet,     \n\nKGF,:,_K01af'D'i_st;;iet.  _ _' ...APPELLANT\n\n(By sri.K;x1:%Nar\u00e9.s_i\ufb01;yh'a;\u00a7.;e' Advocate}\n\n'   Sri.Rz-\ufb01iaachandrappa,\n\na  SZ\"0.:R\u00a3im~appa,\n 43 yeears,\n\n 2. \" ..Kum.Manjula,\n\n..  I}\/0.Ramachar1drappa,\n 15 years.\n\n-:2. Sri.Subramani, 11 years\n\" S \/ 0.Ramachar1drappa,\n\nV\n\n\n\n3\n\nAll are R\/ at Dasamanapalli,\nGudpalli Post,\n\nKuppam Taluk,\n\nAndhra Pradesh State.\n\nRespondent 2 and 3 being minors __ _ s_* <\/pre>\n
Represented by their Guardian\/Father ‘ ”<\/p>\n
i.e., 1st Respondent.     ht <\/p>\n
(By Sri.C.Puttabi Raman, AdVoe;ete)?._’_’t ” <\/p>\n
RFA filed u\/s.96 of against t’J_’udgetnentV.t’<\/p>\n
and decree dated: 14.8.2003 in’O.:S.:No.f29\/ 96 on
\nthe file of the Civil Jjdttdgtjth Kolar Gold Fields,<\/p>\n
partly decreeing the for
\n  for hearing this day,
\n V   the following: —\n<\/p>\n
‘ “aJUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 “Atppe1}a:j’t-Vts___’th.e defendant before the court below<\/p>\n
‘ ;being..V’agg:.teV’e_d by the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
“tows-2tot\u00a7’.3-3_ hztade in O.S.29\/1996 passed by the own<\/p>\n
 Jud,geV”‘($rt]4’Z)n.) KGF, \ufb01led this regular first appeal.<\/p>\n
\u00a32”\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
\nThe plaintiffs \ufb01led a suit seeking daniagies of<\/p>\n
?.3,00,000\/- towards compensation of<\/p>\n
Yashodarnnla and also for other reliefs.M__ln.:.tlie-plaint,_ it <\/p>\n
the plaintiffs have contended  J<\/p>\n
the father of plaintiffs 2 and Thefirst  ~’<\/p>\n
one Yashodamnia about   plaintiffs 2
\nand 3 were born    wife of the
\nfirst plaintiff once  However,
\nshe does   child and she
\ndecidedmto which is against the
\nwill ‘and she was telling the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff that  wanted to consult the lady Doctor in<\/p>\n
 ‘that  lt was further contended in the plaint that<\/p>\n
  plaintiff paid a sum of $1,200\/\u00ab~ to his<\/p>\n
Wife Yasliodarnma to bring provision for the house at<\/p>\n
  10.30 21.111. Accordingly, she went to the<\/p>\n
l’~Alndersonpet, KGF for purchase of the provision for the<\/p>\n
2 “house. On the same day, the first plaintiff left to his<\/p>\n
\/W<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\nparents’ house at Dasarlahalli in Andhra Pradesh at<\/p>\n
about 1.00 p.m. At about 10.00 p.In., thegg\ufb01rst<\/p>\n
plaintiffs father-in–1aw Gurappa came to <\/p>\n
and told him that a constable from  it<\/p>\n
came to Soorahalli and informed   first <\/p>\n
wife Yashodarnnia has died at-‘tiae  <\/p>\n
Center, Kamasamudram     After
\nhearing the news  htevtiiiinmediately
\nrushed to the Primaty and got an
\ninformation?_:  dne   negligence and
\ncu1pa:b”le_’ part of the defendant, his
\nwife  that of aborting the advanced<\/p>\n
pregnancy:  ., the plaint, the first plaintiff has<\/p>\n
 ‘e.onteVn\ufb01ded4A”that the defendant was working as a Lady<\/p>\n
  of the Primary Health Center at<\/p>\n
 and she had the habit of doing iilegal<\/p>\n
  “abortions collecting huge money. The plaintiff came to<\/p>\n
 that the defendant, who made an attempt to abort<\/p>\n
V “the advanced pregnancy has caused death of his wife,<\/p>\n
\/W<\/p>\n
which is due to negligence on the part of the defendant.<\/p>\n
The defendant has acted without due care <\/p>\n
and without good faith and caused the’_d’e:ath_=o’f’<\/p>\n
plaintiffs wife. Further, one <\/p>\n
was also present with the defendant  <\/p>\n
aborting his Wife at Prima13}’l”IrlVea1th the
\ndefendant. The first:plain_tiff_ that he is
\nan agriculturist, he   Support to his
\nfamily and    children and
\nthey have   death has occurred
\ndue of’ defendant. He further
\nallegesilthat   a Complainant against the<\/p>\n
defendant hefore VtheV’PSi, Kamasamudram. However, in<\/p>\n
   the defendant, the Police have not taken<\/p>\n
  the defendant. However, FIR has<\/p>\n
been filedvsuppressing the real fact in Cr.No.87\/1992,<\/p>\n
 und_erlSection 314 of IPC. The Sub–Inspector of Police<\/p>\n
 ‘”wa’s”ftrying to conceal the correct facts. As a result of<\/p>\n
 “the death of his wife, the first plaintiff has lost his loving<\/p>\n
A\/W<\/p>\n
wife and mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The first plaintiff<\/p>\n
has suffered great mental torture and <\/p>\n
future happy life solely on account of gross: negligence  <\/p>\n
on the part of the defendant in\ufb02renderring’ <\/p>\n
service. The plaintiff issued legal 2 to4\u00e9the’–..p<\/p>\n
defendant calling upon her to the”dan1ages;:ofV?’.3.00 V<\/p>\n
lakhs however, the   untenable reply
\nand false and fI’iVO10t1V_S;’  said reply
\nnotice. Hei_icej\u00a7-thelgplaintiffsiiilsouglit for damages of<\/p>\n
$3.00 iakiqs fut,u:re’.’iinterest’;\u00a7 <\/p>\n
3.    notice issued by the Civil<\/p>\n
Judge {Sr.’\u00a3)n;},vthefrespondent entered appearance and<\/p>\n
   objections,-\u00abdenying the averments made in the<\/p>\n
 also denied the relationship between the<\/p>\n
 the deceased Yashodamma. She has<\/p>\n
 furtherlfdenied the marriage between the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
V”L:V’_AAand:”p_Yashoda1nma and that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are<\/p>\n
Wljorn to Yashodamma through him. It was further<\/p>\n
\/5″\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\ncontended that on 6-9-1992. one Yashodarnma<\/p>\n
approached defendant at about 12.45 p.m. and she has
\ngiven the history that she left her husband \ufb01ve years<\/p>\n
ago and that she was pregnant as a result offilnlicit<\/p>\n
relation with somebody and that there wasgwan’<\/p>\n
to cause termination of her pregnancy by..S_orneoi1e and, <\/p>\n
that it was unsuccessful. The dyefendajnt’<\/p>\n
that the deceased told the defendant  <\/p>\n
advised to go to     Center,
\nKamasamudrarn for  tre’at_In_ei1t_. It was further<\/p>\n
contended’ 1that,the d,efend_ant examined her and found
\nthat   weak and frail and also<\/p>\n
ane;rnie..and l*:e_r”}”)’ulse was feeble. There was bleeding in<\/p>\n
 her genitaigorgans. Her speech was slow; she was<\/p>\n
 .gas__pfif1g'”‘and.f;’irresponsive to the painful. stimuli. It was<\/p>\n
statedfithat the defendant gave necessary treatment.<\/p>\n
V.   *inspite” of her best efforts. Yashodarnma died. Death of<\/p>\n
Vtvhedfashodainma was beyond the control of the Doctor.<\/p>\n
2  was further stated that pregnancy of Yashodamma<\/p>\n
\/5*<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
was terminated by some unknown quack. the treatment<\/p>\n
of the defendant was con\ufb01ned to the conditionjo.fp the<\/p>\n
patient as stated above, there was no child <\/p>\n
of Yashodamma when she appearech”~–he’fore._ hthfe.<\/p>\n
defendant on 6-9-1992. Herg:Jdea:thj–,<\/p>\n
shock as a result of pain; _b1eeding~ in\ufb02ainination’; and’,<\/p>\n
excitement. The defenda,nti’iiV.alsoVV cor:-tend’ed.’:’f\u00a7that she
\npossesses an of 20 pears in the
\nMedical DeparAt_ment;’,.slrie:–,h’a,s’ of deliveries
\nand she   The Government
\nhas  meritorious service. In order
\nto harrn  present case has been \ufb01led<\/p>\n
see4l;ing.for.Vd’arna1gesV. The defendant further contended<\/p>\n
 that   plaintiff filed a Complaint before the<\/p>\n
 Karnaia’k~a_St’at’e Consumer Redressal Forum, Bangalore<\/p>\n
inl””—No-.,l3.25’71992 and the said petition has been<\/p>\n
3   dismissed. Further. the COD has conducted an enquiry<\/p>\n
lalnldtllsubmitted ‘B’ report. Hence, the suit \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
\/9*<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\nplaintiffs is not maintainable and sought for dismissal<\/p>\n
of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
4. On the basis of the pleadings of  <\/p>\n
Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.) has framedfthlebZfdllcwingg_
\n(1) Whether the _ plaintiffs prcve. v’t’ttat’:  99
\nplaintiff
\nYashodamrna,  plaintiffs —  and 3
\nwere   0{i”‘_wedlock?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether. ..   jvprove that<\/p>\n
if the Wife of the first
\n9  mother of plaintiffs 2
\n9 *at1t”._1  on 6-9-1992 on account
\n “0fl__glfQSS negligence and culpable
\n  negiect on the part of the defendant
\n  aborting the advanced pregnancy
\n    of Yashodamma’?\n<\/p>\n
9′ ..   Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
\n claim compensation of $3.00 lakhs<\/p>\n
from the defendant? and<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iv) What decree or order’?\n<\/p>\n
5. The plaintiffs in order to prove their c_a;\u00a7”e’,\u00abl  _<\/p>\n
plaintiff examined himself as   fiV\\f’e”VV <\/p>\n
other Witnesses as P.W.2 to  the<\/p>\n
documents as EX.P.1 tov’iV_EX_.P.$ll.’-..l’On  <\/p>\n
defendant, she exarninedV_herse1f_as..{)tW.1J}and got<\/p>\n
marked the doeu.men’t–\n<\/p>\n
6. ,’l-‘he_Conrt3\u00a7:.belevi\u00e9v;._vlatter-cvdnsidering the oral and
\ndocuriientlaryvjeiiideriee=.1e’t__lin by the parties held issue<\/p>\n
Nos.1   ~.theblaifirmative and issue No.3 partly<\/p>\n
   Consequently decreed the suit in part by its<\/p>\n
  jtrdgrIi’eiit;’ar:id-decree dated 14–8-2003 holding that the<\/p>\n
 entitled for the damages of Rs.55,800\/–<\/p>\n
 and  directed the defendant to pay the said amount<\/p>\n
  interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till<\/p>\n
 .,I5ayInent.\n<\/p>\n
\/4*<\/p>\n
7. T he appellant being aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
and decree dated 14~\u00bb8-2003 made in <\/p>\n
preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8. Sri.K.V.Narasimhan,” .learnedv~ cc=…1_ns.e1fjappcarings. ‘<\/p>\n
for the appellant contendedwthatvgp the ” j–t1dginent and
\ndecree passed by the  contraxy to law
\nand material eikidencelllon and  unsustainable<\/p>\n
in law.   there is no negligence<\/p>\n
on the  aippellarit in treating the deceased
\nYashodarrnna. ‘fashodamma was very weak and<\/p>\n
she; gave  lthalt. she was aborted from some quack<\/p>\n
  “ayvas bleeding in her genital organs, the<\/p>\n
  treatment to the patient. however<\/p>\n
her condition was not improved due to the constant<\/p>\n
it   bleeding. She has not concentrated to find out whether<\/p>\n
foetiis is present or not in the uterus. Further, the first<\/p>\n
it  ‘appellant is not the husband of the deceased, hence the<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
\u00a32<\/p>\n
suit filed by the plaintiffs is ‘not maintainable. The<\/p>\n
appellant has further contended that she has perihrtned<\/p>\n
the duty as a Doctor and tried to protect the~~–.ife:<\/p>\n
said Yashodarnma, since she was very_..we’ak*and sh”e._ <\/p>\n
came to the Primary Health CI;:’ent:e:gV’V1aStV”‘%{\u00e9.g\u00e9l;<\/p>\n
inspite of the best treatmen’t,_her lifel’could\u00bbnot  ;<\/p>\n
Hence the liability cannot  onllthe:_appefllant and
\nappellant is not liablefftoi  “lOn these
\ngrounds sought  and
\ndecree     by allowing this\n<\/p>\n
9. the “Sri. Pattabi Ranian, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appe-agrirlg for the respondents 1 to 3 contended<\/p>\n
 no irregularity or illegality in the judgment<\/p>\n
  ::passed by the court below in granting<\/p>\n
damages  to the death of Yashodamma. The court<\/p>\n
V   below framed necessary issues after examining the oral<\/p>\n
l”‘an’d’:documentary evidence of the parties. The \ufb01nding<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
E3<\/p>\n
has been given Correctly and the same is not liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered with by this Hon*ble Court and souigiit for<\/p>\n
dismissal of the appeal by upholding the <\/p>\n
decree passed by the court below.<\/p>\n
10. We have carefully gone _t_h.rough;’.th’e::’g;fgurrien-tsff <\/p>\n
addressed by the Iearned counsel forthe <\/p>\n
oral and documentary evideric-e_ of\n<\/p>\n
11. It is not in dispute that—-th’e. saigd Yas’i1vo.da..:’hma died<\/p>\n
on 6-9-1992 in the  The first<\/p>\n
plaintiff hast?’::ont3end.eVd\u00ab–..that ‘ifashodamma was his wife
\nand p1’ai.r1tifyfs’2._  Children of Yashodamrna.<\/p>\n
H0i:V\u20ac’t'(3r, _ defendant denied the same stating<\/p>\n
 that.  deoeasedfffinformed the defendant that she has<\/p>\n
  about 20 years back, inspite of the<\/p>\n
sarne,v–._’sh’e:”‘became pregnant by iilicit reiationship and<\/p>\n
it   rrsought” for abortion.\n<\/p>\n
J”\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
12. In order to prove the relationship of the deceased.<\/p>\n
the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.;i=._ and<\/p>\n
deposed that their marriage took place <\/p>\n
back. Due to their wedlock, plaintiffs 2  1 <\/p>\n
They were living in Soorahalli and their ‘names’ were’a1so<\/p>\n
included in the Voter’s list. _Thelfi.rs’t..plaintiiff:conte.ndedvL<\/p>\n
that on 6-9~\u00bb1992, he  paid  1,22:0(jl\/– to V<\/p>\n
Yashodamrna, to  house at about
\n10.30 am. from the  he Went<\/p>\n
to his  house  in Andhra<\/p>\n
Pradesh,   _* afrvay from Soorahalli. At
\naboutf’1_0.00l   night, his father-in–law<\/p>\n
Guijappa  the death of the Yashodamma.<\/p>\n
 he had been to the Primary Health Center.<\/p>\n
 ._In’_’_thev4:Po_stwAl.l’V;iViortem Report, name of the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
was shovvii as husband of the deceased Yashodamma.<\/p>\n
V.   *FL1.rthVe’r. in the FIR \ufb01led by the Police also name of the<\/p>\n
 plaintiff was mentioned as husband of the<\/p>\n
if  “deceased.\n<\/p>\n
At<\/p>\n
13. In support of his contention, the first plaintiitifhas<\/p>\n
examined the mother of Yashodamma Smt_.;ivianga:rrirna<\/p>\n
W\/o. Gurappa as P.W.4. P.W.4 <\/p>\n
admitted that the first piaintiif ‘4’so:n}i’n\u00a5ia’:w:<\/p>\n
plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the .<ii1i__ldrei'1'r.ioorn <\/p>\n
and Yashodamma. In the  she has
\ndenied the suggestion_..fm_acie  t–hei.:de_fendant that the
\nfirst piaintiff left. the   years prior to<\/p>\n
the death    another girl by<\/p>\n
name ,Cl1in_r.i\u00a3:ki{a;.;  "\n<\/p>\n
14\u00bb. Further’, it has seen Yashodamma going to<\/p>\n
   I–Igea1t}1″”Cv–…nter at about 11.00 am. on the said<\/p>\n
 I diate, “‘P:_fVV;’3.’i1as also stated that he was a NSC agent.<\/p>\n
‘While  back from the Hotel, he had seen<\/p>\n
 Yashodarrirna and she informed that she is going to the<\/p>\n
“‘j”_h.osjp;ita1 for treatment. Nothing contrary has been<\/p>\n
 elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3. Further<\/p>\n
in”\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\nP.W.5 and 6 are residents of Soorahalli village and they<\/p>\n
have deposed that the first plaintiff is the husband of<\/p>\n
Yashodamma and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are <\/p>\n
the first plaintiff and Yashodamma.  <\/p>\n
examination of these witnesses, nothing ’33h_as<\/p>\n
been elicited. Further in  i.’ei,f’in <\/p>\n
report, name of the first  has ‘been ‘rnenitioned as
\nhusband of Yashodamma. 3. Voters list of
\nSoorahalli village,  of i’ii*st’*:p1-aintiff has been
\nmentionedas lfiu’s\u00a7:w.anq\u20ac  Hence, it is
\neleari_:fthat’_A.’have proved by cogent evidence<\/p>\n
that  plaintiff  of Yashodarnma.\n<\/p>\n
   “regard to the second issue is concerned, first<\/p>\n
  that his wife was hale and health. On<\/p>\n
6–fg..19iQ2;v’:””he paid ‘\u20ac11,200\/– to get provision from<\/p>\n
V.   :A11..derVs’onpet and she left for Andersonpet at 10.30 am.<\/p>\n
7l’hoi1gh Yashodamma expressed her dissatisfaction<\/p>\n
‘ it “towards the third child, she informed the plaintiff that<\/p>\n
f”\n<\/p>\n
:7
\nshe would consult the Doctor since it is in the advanced<\/p>\n
stage, which is against the wishes of the plaintiff. At<\/p>\n
about 10.00 p.m. the father\u00ab~in-law of the <\/p>\n
informed the death of his wife at Primary  <\/p>\n
due to the abortion. Immedijately,’  <\/p>\n
Primary Health Center and hfouind  his’: ffwifeg<\/p>\n
Yashodarnrna died. The defendant i’n._h’erV-Zstatement of<\/p>\n
objections has c0.nt’e_nded ashodamma was
\naborted by some other   came to the
\nPrimary treatment and at that
\ntimeyshe   and anemic; her pulse was
\nfeeble  yygaspfing;  “has stated that there was no<\/p>\n
chi_ld”in her v.r0m’b and ‘she has only given treatment and<\/p>\n
  f  I-Iuovvever, P.W.2 the Doctor who has<\/p>\n
I   fthe:”Post Mortern has clearly reported that the<\/p>\n
death..__has\u00ab:”‘been caused due to the attempt to abort the<\/p>\n
 ..a,dvan’ced pregnancy. The deceased Yashodarnma is<\/p>\n
 about 32 years. On opening the body, it was<\/p>\n
if ” “found that the Uterus was intact and enlarged and<\/p>\n
Ad<\/p>\n
E8<\/p>\n
contains a dead male foetus about 17 Crns in length.
\nattached to the uterus. Hence, it is clear that the
\ndeceased Yashodamrna was not aborted <\/p>\n
and she died during the course of abortion:-._: V  ll” it<\/p>\n
16. The defendant in sL3p_port”of7her case “eiKa1″ni”ned\u00a2<\/p>\n
herself as D.W.l and deposediithat at  a.rn.,l<\/p>\n
the deceased   clinic and
\nnobody has come ;vwl-as bleeding and
\nshe was weai;,,, ttg Dtte   ‘illicitiilrelation she had
\nbecorne “died within 10 minutes of giving
\ntreatinent  “she lodged a Complaint to the<\/p>\n
poljigce, She ‘-has further deposed that the deceased was<\/p>\n
  aborted in some other place, hence, the<\/p>\n
 . aborting her does not arise. In<\/p>\n
the crosseelxainination she has stated that she has not<\/p>\n
it  ilexainined the deceased whether she was pregnant or<\/p>\n
 At one stage she states that when the deceased<\/p>\n
it “Yashodamma came to the clinic she was alone in the<\/p>\n
\/3”\n<\/p>\n
hospital and at another stage, she states that…__while<\/p>\n
treating the deceased Narayanamma and Yashodarrima<\/p>\n
Group–D employees were present.  <\/p>\n
constant bleeding, steroid was~-given.’ the’b.l0o–d ‘<\/p>\n
was not available, blood was not  <\/p>\n
deposed that she has not  o1itpati’en_t=  that<\/p>\n
day. The deposition”  to show
\nthat she has not taken   Yashodamma.
\nThe statements’rnadew  I statement runs
\ncontrary ito  Therefore, it is
\n taken proper care and
\ncaution’   patient, or giving proper<\/p>\n
treatment. V’1″he’defendant being a Doctor must examine<\/p>\n
   patient can be aborted or not at this<\/p>\n
A   The defendant in her evidence deposed<\/p>\n
that the ‘deceased might have been aborted two days<\/p>\n
 earlierf’ Hence, the evidence on record clearly shows<\/p>\n
“thlatj the defendant was negligent in attempting to abort<\/p>\n
  the patient and thereby caused the death of the patient.<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
Further, defendant has also not examined another
\nemployee i.e. ANM Working in the Primary Heai-‘th-Center<\/p>\n
on this behaif.\n<\/p>\n
17. The speci\ufb01c case of the::cA_P.W.4izfiv <\/p>\n
employees Narayananima’ -.___andV”e,Yasho–iarr;ma jwereii\u00bb<\/p>\n
present at the time of treatrrient.  none of the
\nemployees working  Center were
\nexamined. The N1,’:PfS\\’?:.. Cigrimaxy Health
\nCenter wotiift   and treatment
\nwill  of the Doctor. None of
\nthe  oi I\ufb01iealth Center were examined.<\/p>\n
Hence,  vvev’id_ence’\u00ab…u9of the defendant cannot be<\/p>\n
   The ‘cot:-1<*t"be1ow taking into consideration all<\/p>\n
 these  of the matter has found that<\/p>\n
 died due to the negligence on the part of<\/p>\n
 the defvedndant.\n<\/p>\n
 “18.  We have re–exan1ined the matter once again and<\/p>\n
 “found that the appellant has not made out any case to<\/p>\n
\/\u00e9r”\n<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
take contrary view, though, a meager sum of ?.5.5″,=.-5300\/–<\/p>\n
was awarded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
want to interfere with the judgment  <\/p>\n
by the court below. Hence, we Itjase’t11e”fo1IQ’wir1g\u00bb<\/p>\n
e .Q1;3_:)eR’ ‘-  V<\/p>\n
The appeal fileciiby the–\u00ab2;1.5pe’i}a”nt is’ divsmigissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar 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\u00a7TH..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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-22T00:51:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T00:51:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2686,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T00:51:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-22T00:51:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T00:51:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":2686,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010","name":"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T00:51:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-loganayaki-vs-ramachandrappa-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr Loganayaki vs Ramachandrappa on 26 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203806","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}