{"id":238246,"date":"1968-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968"},"modified":"2015-07-10T10:43:17","modified_gmt":"2015-07-10T05:13:17","slug":"laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968","title":{"rendered":"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 128, \t\t 1969 SCR (1) 206<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLAXMAN BALKRISHNA JOSHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTRIMBAK BAPU GODBOLE AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/05\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  128\t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 206\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1989 SC1570\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nTort-Negligence of Surgeon.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA person who holds himself out ready to give medical  advice\nand treatment impliedly holds forth that he is possessed  of\nskill  and  knowledge for the Purpose.\tSuch a\tperson\twhen\nconsulted by a patient, owes certain duties, namely, a\tduty\nof care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of\ncare in deciding what treatment to give, and a duty of\tcare\nin the administration of that treatment.  A breach of any of\nthese  duties gives a right of action of negligence  against\nhim.  The medical practitioner has a discretion in  choosing\nthe  treatment which he proposes to give to the patient\t and\nsuch discretion is wider in cases of emergency, but, he must\nbring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge\nand  must exercise a reasonable degree of care according  to\n-the circumstances of each case. [213 C-E]\nIn  the present case, on 6th May 1953, the son of the  first\nrespondent suffered a fracture of the femur of his left leg.\nFirst aid was given by -a local physician though the leg was\nnot  fully or properly immobilised, and, on the 9th  May  be\nwas  taken  to the appellant's hospital in Poona  200  miles\naway, in a taxi after a journey of about eleven hours.\t The\nappellant  directed his assistant to give two injections  of\nmorphia\t but only one injection was given.  The patient\t was\nthen  given some treatment in the operation theatre and\t the\nfirst  respondent was assured at 5.30 p.m.  that  everything\nwas  all  right\t and that the patient would be\tout  of\t the\neffects of morphia by 7 p.m. The first respondent  thereupon\nleft  for  Dhond  where\t he  was  practising  as  a  medical\npractitioner.\t A  little  later  however,  the   patient's\ncondition   deteriorated  and  at  9  p.m.  be\tdied.\t The\n'appellant issued a certificate that the cause of death\t was\nfat embolism.\nThe first respondent filed a suit against the appellant\t for\ndamages\t for  negligence  towards his  patient.\t  The  trial\nCourt, and the High Court in appeal, held that the appellant\nhad performed reduction of the fracture, that in doing so he\napplied\t with the help of three of his assistants  excessive\nforce,\tthat  such  reduction was done\twithout\t giving\t any\nanaesthetic  but while the patient was under the  effect  of\nthe  morphia injection, that the said treatment resulted  in\nthe  embolism,\tor shock, which was the proximate  cause  of\ndeath,\tthat  the  appellant was guilty\t of  negligence\t and\nwrongful acts, and awarded Rs. 3,000 as damages.\nIn  appeal to, this Court, it was contended that :  (1)\t The\nHigh  Court  erred  in placing\treliance  on  medical  works\ninstead\t of considering the evidence of the expert  examined\non  behalf of the respondents; and (2) the  findings  though\nconcurrent,  should be reopened by this Court, as they\twere\narrived at on a misunderstanding of the evidence and on mere\nconjectures and surmises.\nHELD:\t  (1)  There  was nothing wrong in  the\t High  Court\nemphasising  the  opinions  of\tauthors\t of  well-recognised\nmedical\t works\tinstead\t of basing its\tconclusions  on\t the\nexpert's evidence as, it was a alleged by the appellant that\nthe  expert  was a professional rival of the  appellant\t and\nwas, therefore, unsympathetic towards him. [216 E-F]\n207\n(2)  The  trial\t court\tand the High  Court  were  right  in\nholding\t that  the appellant was guilty\t of  negligence\t and\nwrongful  acts\ttowards\t the  patient  and  was\t liable\t for\ndamages, because, the first respondent's case that what\t the\nappellant  did was reduction of the fracture without  giving\nanaesthetic, and not mere immobilisation with light traction\n'as  was  the  appellant's case,  was  more  acceptable\t and\nconsistent  with  the facts and circumstances of  the  case.\n[218 C-D]\n(a)  The first respondent himself was a medical practitioner\nwho was present throughout when treatment was being given to\nhis son and understood the treatment [214 A]\n(b)  If\t reduction  of the fracture had been  postponed\t and\nonly  immobilisation  had been done,  the  first  respondent\nwould  not  have left for Dhond.  It was  only\tbecause\t the\nreduction of fracture had been done and the first respondent\nwas  assured that the patients 'condition  was\tsatisfactory\nand that he would come out of the morphia effect in an\thour\nor so, that the first respondent felt that his presence\t was\nno longer necessary. [214 F-H; 215 A-B]\n(c)  The  patient  must\t have been unconscious\tdue  to\t the\neffects\t of  morphia and the appellant's  version  that\t the\npatient\t was  cooperating throughout the  treatment  in\t the\noperation  theatre  could not be true.\tThe  second  morphia\ninjection was not given as directed, because, the first\t one\nhad a deeper effect than was anticipated and not because the\nassistant forgot to give it. [214 C-D; E-F]\n(d)  In spite of the first respondent having made a specific\nreference  to the reduction of the fracture and the  use  by\nthe   appellant\t  of   excessive   manual   force    without\nadministering  anaesthetic, in his complaint to the  Medical\nCouncil\t  the\tappellant  in  his   explanation   did\t not\nspecifically answer it. [215 F-H]\n(e)  If his version as to the treatment given by him to\t the\npatient\t were correct, there was no need for the  appellant,\nin  his letter to the first respondent, written\t two  months\nlater, to 'ask forgiveness for any mistake committed by him.\n[215 E-F]\n(f)  The  cause\t of  death  was\t shock\tresulting  from\t the\nappellant's  treatment.\t The appellant's theory\t that  death\nwas due to embolism which must have set in from the time the\naccident occurred was only an afterthought, because : (i) in\nhis apologetic letter he confessed that even then he was not\nable  to  gauge\t the reasons for the  death,  (ii)  symptoms\nshowing embolism were not noticed either by the appellant or\nthe  first respondent, and (iii) the appellant\thaving\tbeen\nsurgeon\t of  long experience and knowing that two  days\t had\nelapsed since the accident would surely have looked for\t the\nsymptoms if he had felt there was a possibility of  embolism\nhaving set in. [217 G-H; 218 A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 547 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nFebruary  25,  27, 1963 of the Bombay High  Court  in  First
\nAppeal No. 552 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Purshottamdas Tricumdas and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
\nBishan\tNarain,\t B. Dutta and J. B.   Dadachatnji,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
208<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat, J. This appeal by special leave raises the  question
\nof  the liability of a surgeon for alleged  neglect  towards
\nhis patient.  It arises from the following facts.
\nAt  about sunset on May 6, 1953, Ananda, the son of  respon-
\ndent 1, aged about twenty years, met with an accident on the
\nsea beach at Palshet, a village in Ratnagiri District, which
\nresulted  in  the  fracture of the femur of  his  left\tleg.
\nSince the sea beach was at a distance of 14′ miles from\t the
\nplace where he and his mother lived at the time it took some
\ntime  to  bring\t a cot and remove him  to  the\thouse.\t Dr.
\nRisbud, a local physician, was called at about 8-30 or\t8-45
\nP.m. The only treatment he gave was to tie wooden planks  on
\nthe  boy’s leg with a view to immobilise it and\t give  rest.
\nNext day, he visited the boy and though he found him in good
\ncondition,  he advised his removal to Poona  for  treatment.
\nOn May 8, 1953, Dr. Risbud procured Mae Intyres splints\t and
\nsubstituted  them  for the said wooden planks.\tA  taxi\t was
\nthereafter  called in which the boy Ananda was placed  in  a
\nreclining  position and he, along with respondent 2 and\t Dr.
\nRisbud,\t started for Poona at about 1 A.m. They reached\t the
\ncity after a journey of about 200 miles at about 11-30\tA.m.
\non May 9, 1953.\t By that time respondent 1 had come to Poona
\nfrom   Dhond   where  he  was  practising   as\t a   medical
\npractitioner.  They took the boy first to Tarachand Hospital
\nwhere  his injured leg was screened.  It was found  that  he
\nhad an overlapping fracture of the femur which required pin-
\ntraction.   The respondents thereafter took the boy  to\t the
\nappellant’s  hospital where, in his absence, his  assistant,
\nDr.  Irani, admitted him at 2-15 P.m. Some  time  thereafter
\nthe  appellant arrived and after a  preliminary\t examination
\ndirected Dr. Irani to give two injections of 1\/8th grain  of
\nmorphia\t and  1\/200th grain of Hyoscine H.B.  at  an  hour’s
\ninterval.   Dr.\t Irani, however, gave  only  one  injection.
\nAnanda\twas  thereafter\t removed to the X-ray  room  on\t the
\nground\tfloor of the hospital where two X-ray photos of\t the
\ninjured\t leg  were  taken.   He\t was  then  removed  to\t the
\noperation  theatre on the upper floor where the injured\t leg
\nwas  put  into\tplaster splints.  The boy was  kept  in\t the
\noperation  theatre  for a little more than an  hour  and  at
\nabout  5-30  P.m.,  after the treatment\t was  over,  he\t was
\nremoved to the room assigned to him.  On an assurance  given
\nto  respondent 1 that Ananda would be out of the  effect  of
\nmorphia by 7 P.m., respondent 1 left for Dhond.\t  Respondent
\n2, however, remained with Ananda in the said room.  At about
\n6-30  P.m.  she noticed that he was  finding  difficulty  in
\nbreathing and was having cough.\t Thereupon Dr. Irani  called
\nthe  appellant\twho, finding that the  boy’s  condition\t was
\ndeteriorating  started\tgiving\temergency  treatment   which
\ncontinued right until 9 P.m. when the
\n209<\/span>
\nboy expired.  The appellant thereupon issued a\tcertificate,
\nExt.  138, stating therein that the cause of death  was\t fat
\nembolism.\n<\/p>\n
The  case  of the respondents, as stated in para  4  of\t the
\nplaint, was that the appellant did not perform the essential
\npreliminary  examination  of  the boy  before  starting\t his
\ntreatment;  that  without  such\t preliminary  examination  a
\nmorphia injection was given to him; that the boy soon  after
\nwent  ‘under morphia’ that while he was ‘under morphia’\t the
\nappellant  took him to the X-ray room, took X-ray plates  of
\nthe  injured leg and removed him to the\t operation  theatre.
\nTheir case further was that
\n\t      “While   putting\tthe  leg  in   plaster\t the
\n\t      defendant\t  used\tmanual\ttraction  and\tused
\n\t      excessive\t force\tfor this purpose,  with\t the
\n\t      help  of three men although such\ttraction  is
\n\t      never done under morphia alone, but done under
\n\t\t\t    proper general anesthesia.\tThis kind
\nof  rough
\n\t      manipulation is calculated to cause conditions
\n\t      favourable  for  embolism or shock  and  prove
\n\t      fatal to the patient.  The plaintiff No. 1 was
\n\t      given to understand that the patient would  be
\n\t      completely  out of morphia by 7 p.M. and\tthat
\n\t      he had nothing to worry about.  Plaintiff\t No.
\n\t      1 therefore left for Dhond at about 6 P.M. the
\n\t      same evening.”\n<\/p>\n
In   his  written  statement  the  appellant  denied   these
\nallegations  and  stated  that the boy was  only  under\t the
\nanalgesic effect of the morphia injection when he was  taken
\nto  the\t X-ray room and his limb was put in plaster  in\t the
\noperation theatre.  Sometime after the morphia injection the
\npatient was taken to the X-ray room where X-ray plates\twere
\ntaken.\t The  boy was cooperating  satisfactorily.   He\t was
\nthereafter  removed to the operation theatre and put on\t the
\noperation  table.  The written statement tiler, proceeds  to
\nstate :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Taking into consideration the history of the
\n\t      patient  and  his\t exhausted  condition,\t the
\n\t      defendant did not find it desirable to give  a
\n\t      general anesthetic.  The defendant, therefore,
\n\t      decided  to immobilise the fractured femur  by
\n\t      plaster  of  Paris  bandages.   The  defendant
\n\t      accordingly  reduced the rotational  deformity
\n\t      and  held\t the limb in  proper  position\twith
\n\t      slight  traction and immbilised it in  plaster
\n\t      spica.  The hospital staff was in\t attendance.
\n\t      The  patient was\tcooperating  satisfactorily.
\n\t      The allegation that the defendant used  exces-
\n\t      sive force with the help of three men for\t the
\n\t      purpose of manual traction is altogether false
\n\t      and  mischievous\tand the defendant  does\t not
\n\t      admit it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The appellant further averred that
\n\t      210<\/span>
\n\t      “the  defendant  put  the\t patients  limb\t  in
\n\t      plaster as an immediate preliminary  treatment
\n\t      on  that\tday with a view\t to  ameliorate\t the
\n\t      patient’s condition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
His  case further was that at about 6-30 P.m. it  was  found
\nthat  the boy’s breathing had become abnormal whereupon\t the
\nappellant  immediately went to attend on him and found\tthat
\nhis condition had suddenly deteriorated, his temperature had
\none high, he was in coma, was having difficulty in breathing
\nand  was  showing  signs  of  cerebral\tembolism  and\tthat
\nnotwithstanding the emergency treatment he gave, he died  at
\nabout  9  P.M. The parties led considerable  evidence,\tboth
\noral  and  documentary,, which included\t the  correspondence
\nthat had ensued between them following the death of  Ananda,
\nthe appellant’s letter, dated July 17, 1953 to respondent 1,
\nthe  complaint lodged by respondent 1 to the Bombay  Medical
\nCouncil, the appellant’s explanation thereto and such of the
\nrecords of the case as were Produced by the appellant.\t The
\noral  testimony\t consisted  of\tthe  evidence  of  the\t two
\nrespondents, Dr. Gharpure and certain other doctors of Poona
\non  the one side and of the appellant and his assistant\t Dr.
\nIrani, on the other.  The nurse who attended on the boy\t was
\nnot examined.  At the time of the arguments the parties used
\nextensively  well-known works on surgery, particularly\twith
\nreference  to treatment of fractures of long bones  such  as
\nthe femur.\n<\/p>\n
On  this  evidence, the trial court came  to  the  following
\nfindings  :  (a) The accident resulting in the\tfracture  of
\nfemur in the left leg of Ananda occurred at about 7 P.m.  on
\nMay 6, 1953 at the sea beach of village Palshet.  That place
\nwas  about one and a quarter mile away from the place  where
\nhe and respondent 2 had put up.\t Arrangement had to be\tmade
\nfor  the  cot  to remove him and the boy  was  brought\thome
\nbetween\t 8-30 and 9 P.m., (b) Dr. Risbud was  called  within
\nten minutes but except for tying three planks to  immobilise
\nthe  leg  he gave no other treatment.  This was\t not  enough
\nbecause\t the fracture was in the middle third of  the  femur
\nand,  therefore, the hip joint and the knee joint  ought  to
\nhave  been  immobilised,  (c) On May  8,  1953,\t Dr.  Risbud
\nremoved\t the planks and put the leg in Mac Intyres  splints.
\nThere was on that day swelling in the thigh and that part of
\nthe  thigh  had\t become red.  The Mac  Intyres\tprotruded  a
\nlittle\tbeyond the foot, (d) At about mid-night on  8\/9\t May
\n1953, a taxi was brought to Palshet.  Ananda was lifted into
\nit and made to lie down in a reclining position.  The  party
\nleft  at  1 A.M. and reached Poona at about 11-30  A.m.\t The
\njourney\t took nearly eleven hours.  The boy was first  taken
\nto  Tarachand  hospital and from there\tto  the\t appellant’s
\nhospital  where he was admitted by Dr. Irani at\t about\t2-15
\nP.m.,  (e) After the appellant was summoned to the  hospital
\nby Dr. Irani, he first examined his
\n211<\/span>
\nheart and lungs, took temperature, pulse and respiration and
\nthe boy was thereafter taken to the X-ray room where two  X-
\nray  plates  were taken.  The appellant\t then  directed\t Dr.
\nIrani to. give two morphia injections at an hour’s  interval
\nbut Dr. Irani gave only one injection instead of two ordered
\nby the appellant.  The trial court found that the  appellant
\nhad  carried  out  the\tpreliminary  examination  before  he
\nstarted\t the boy’s treatment. (f) The morphia injection\t was
\ngiven  at  3 P.m. The boy was removed to the X-ray  room  at
\nabout  3-20  P.m.  He remained in that\troom  for  about  45
\nminutes\t and  was then removed to the operation\t theatre  at
\nabout  4  P.m. and was there till about 5 P.m. when  he\t was
\ntaken to the room assigned to him.  The boy was kept in\t the
\noperation theatre for a little over’ an hour. (g) Respondent
\n1 was all throughout with Ananda and saw the treatment given
\nto  the boy and left the hospital for Dhond at about 6\tP.m.
\non  the assurance given to him that the, boy would come\t out
\nof  the\t morphia  by about 7 P.m. (h)  At  about  6-30\tP.m.
\nrespondent 2 complained to Dr. Irani that the boy was having
\ncough\tand  was  finding  difficulty  in  breathing.\t The
\nappellant,  on being called, examined the boy and found\t his
\ncondition  deteriorating  and,\ttherefore,  gave   emergency
\ntreatment from 6-30 P.m. until the boy died at 9 P.m.
\nOn  the crucial question of treatment given to\tAnanda,\t the
\ntrial  Court  accepted\tthe eye, witness  account  given  by
\nrespondent 1 and came to the conclusion that notwithstanding
\nthe  denial  by the appellant, the appellant  had  performed
\nreduction of the fracture; that in doing so he applied\twith
\nthe  help of three of his attendants excessive\tforce,\tthat
\nsuch reduction was done without giving anesthetic, that\t the
\nsaid treatment resulted in cerebral embolism or shock  which
\nwas the proximate cause of the boy’s death.  The trial court
\ndisbelieved  the  appellant’s case that be  had\t decided  to
\npostpone  reduction  of the fracture or that  his  treatment
\nconsisted  of immobilisation with only light  traction\twith
\nplaster splints.  The trial Judge was of the view that\tthis
\ndefence\t was  an  after-thought\t and  was  contrary  to\t the
\nevidence  and  the  circumstances of  the  case.   On  these
\nfindings  he  held the appellant guilty\t of  negligence\t and
\nwrongful  acts\twhich resulted in the death  of\t Ananda\t and
\nawarded general damages in the sum of Rs. 3,000.
\nIn appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that though
\nthe  appellant’s  case\twas  that  a  thorough\t preliminary
\nexamination was made by him before he started the treatment,
\nthat  did  not\tappear\tto be true.   The  reason  for\tthis
\nconclusion  was\t that  though  Dr.  Irani  swore  that\t the
\npatient’s temperature, pulse and respiration were taken, the
\nclinical  chart,  Ext.\t213,  showed  only  two\t dots,\t one
\nindicating that pulse was 90 and the other that\t respiration
\nwas  24.  But the chart did not record the temperature.\t  If
\nthat  was taken, it was hardly likely that it would  not  be
\nrecorded along with pulse and respiration.\n<\/p>\n
212<\/span><\/p>\n
As regards the appellant’s case that he had decided to delay
\nthe  reduction\tof  the fracture and that  he  would  merely
\nimmobilise  the patient’s leg for the time being with  light
\ntraction,  the High Court agreed with the trial\t court\tthat
\ncase  also was not true.  The injury was a simple  fracture.
\nThe reasons given by the appellant for his decision to delay
\nthe reduction were that (1) there was swelling on the thigh,
\n(2)  that two days had elapsed since the accident, (3)\tthat
\nthere was no urgency for reduction and (4) that the, boy was
\nexhausted  on account of the long journey.  The\t High  Court
\nobserved  that\tthere could not have been swelling  at\tthat
\ntime for neither the clinical notes, Ext. 213, nor the\tcase
\npaper,\tExt.  262 mentioned swelling or\t any  other  symptom
\nwhich  called for delayed reduction.  Ext. 262\tmerely\tmen-
\ntioned\tone  morphia  injection, one  X-ray  photograph\t and
\nputting\t the leg in plaster of Paris.  The reference to\t one
\nX-ray  photo  was obviously incorrect as actually  two\tsuch
\nphotos\twere  taken.  This error crept in because  the\tcase
\npaper,\tExt. 262, was prepared by Dr. Irani some days  after
\nthe boy’s death after the X-ray plates had been handed\tover
\non  demand to respondent 1 and, therefore, were\t not  before
\nher when she: prepared Ext. 262.  Her evidence that she\t had
\nprepared  that exhibit that very night was held\t unreliable.
\nExt.  262,  besides, was a loose sheet which  did  not\teven
\ncontain\t either the name of the appellant or  his  hospital.
\nIt was impossible that a hospital of that standing would not
\nhave printed forms for clinical diagnosis.
\nThe next conclusion that the High Court reached was that  if
\nthe  appellant had come to a decision to postpone  reduction
\nof  the fracture on account of the reasons given by  him  in
\nhis  evidence,\the would have noted in the  clinical  chart,
\nExt.  213,  or the clinical paper, Ext.\t 262,  the  symptoms
\nwhich impelled him to that decision.  The High Court  agreed
\nthat  the  medical text books produced before it  seemed  to
\nsuggest that where time has elapsed since the occurrence  of
\nthe  fracture  and  the patient has  arrived  after  a\tlong
\njourney.  deferred  reduction is advisable.   But  the\tHigh
\nCourt  observed, the question was whether the appellant\t did
\ndefer  the  reduction and performed only  immobilisation  to
\ngive rest to the injured leg.  After analysing the evidence,
\nit  came to the conclusion that what the appellant  actually
\ndid was to reduce the fracture, that in doing so he did\t not
\ncare to give annaesthetic to the patient, that he  contented
\nhimself\t with  a  single morphia  injection,  that  he\tused
\nexcessive force in going through this treatment, using three
\nof  his\t attendants.  for pulling the  injured\tleg  of\t the
\npatient\t that he put that leg in plaster of  Paris  splints,
\nthat  it was this treatment which resulted in shock  causing
\nthe  patient’s death, and lastly, that the appellant’s\tcase
\nthat  the boy died of cerebral embolism was merely  a  cloak
\nused for suppressing the real cause of death, viz., shock.\n<\/p>\n
213<\/span><\/p>\n
These  findings being concurrent, this Court,  according  to
\nits   well-established\t practice,  would   not\t  ordinarily
\ninterfere with them.  But Mr. Purshottam urged that this was
\na  case\t where\twe should reopen  the  findings,  concurrent
\nthough they were, and reappraise the evidence as. the courts
\nbelow  have  arrived at them on a  misunderstanding  of\t the
\nevidence and on mere conjectures and surmises.\tIn order  to
\npersuade us to do so, he took us through the important parts
\nof  the evidence.  Having considered that evidence  and\t the
\nsubmissions  urged  by him, we have come to  the  conclusion
\nthat  no  grounds  are made out which  could  call  for\t our
\ninterference with those findings.\n<\/p>\n
The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear.   A
\nperson\twho holds himself out ready to give  medical  advice
\nand  treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed  of
\nskill  and  knowledge for the purpose.\tSuch a\tperson\twhen
\nconsulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty
\nof care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of
\ncare in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in
\nthe  administration of that treatment.\tA breach of  any  of
\nthose, duties gives a right of action for negligence to, the
\npatient.   The\tpractitioner  must  bring  to  his  task   a
\nreasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a
\nreasonable  degree of care.  Neither the very highest nor  a
\nvery  low degree of care and competence judged in the  light
\nof the particular circumstances of each case is what the law
\nrequire\t : (cf.\t Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd ed. vol.  26
\np.  17).  The doctor no doubt has a discretion\tin  choosing
\ntreatment which he proposes to give to the patient and\tsuch
\ndiscretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency.\t But
\nthe  question is not whether the judgment or  discretion  in
\nchoosing the treatment be exercised was right or wrong, for,
\nas Mr. Purshottam rightly agreed, no such question arises in
\nthe  present case because if we come to the same  conclusion
\nas the High Court, viz., that what the appellant did was  to
\nreduce\tthe fracture without giving anesthetic to  the\tboy,
\nthere  could  be no manner of doubt of his being  guilty  of
\nnegligence  and carelessness.  He also said that he was\t not
\npressing the question whether in this action filed under the
\nFatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855) the respondents would  be
\nentitled to get damages.  The question, therefore, is within
\na small compass, namely, whether the concurrent findings  of
\nthe  trial court and the High Court that what the  appellant
\ndid was reduction of the fracture without giving  anesthetic
\nto  the boy and not mere immobilisation with light  traction
\nas  was his case, is based on evidence or is the  result  of
\nmere  conjecture or surmises or of misunderstanding of\tthat
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
While  considering  the rival cases of the parties,  it\t is,
\nnecessary  to  bear in mind that respondent 1 is  a  medical
\npractitioner  of  considerable standing and  though  not  an
\nexpert in surgery, he is
\n214<\/span>
\nnot  a layman who would not understand the  treatment  which
\nthe appellant gave to the boy.\tIt is not in dispute that he
\nwas  present  all throughout and saw what  was\tbeing  done,
\nfirst in the X-ray room and later in the operation  theatre.
\nThe  trial  court  and the High Court had  before  them\t his
\nversion\t on  the one hand and that of the appellant  on\t the
\nother  and  if\tthey both found that his  version  was\tmore
\nacceptable and consistent with the fact,-, and circumstances
\nof the case than that of the appellant, it would scarcely be
\nlegitimate  to\tsay that they acted on sheer  conjecture  or
\nsurmise.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tnot in dispute that the appellant had  directed\t Dr.
\nIrani to administer two morphia injections.  Admittedly only
\none  was  given.  Dr. Irani said that it wag  not  that\t she
\nomitted\t to  give the second injection\ton  the\t appellant’s
\ninstructions  but  that she, forgot to give the\t other\tone.
\nThat  part of her evidence hardly inspires condence for,  in
\nsuch a case as the present it is impossible to believe\tthat
\nshe  would forget the appellant’s instructions.\t The  second
\none  was probably not given because, the one that was  given
\nhad  a deeper effect on the boy than was  anticipated.\t The
\nevidence of respondent 1 was that after the boy was  brought
\nfrom  the operation theatre to the room assigned to him,  he
\nwas assured by the appellant that the boy was all right\t and
\nwould  come  out of the morphia effect by about 7  P.m.\t and
\nthat thereupon he decided to return to Dhond and did in fact
\nleave  at 6 P.m. Both the courts accepted this part  of\t his
\nevidence  and  we see no reason to find any fault  with\t it.
\nWhat  follows  from this part of his evidence,\thowever,  is
\nsomewhat  important.  If respondent 1 was assured  that\t the
\nboy would come out of the effect of morphia by about 7 P.m.,
\nit  must mean that the appellants version that the  boy\t was
\ncooperating all throughout in the operation theatre and\t was
\neven  lifting  his hand as directed by him cannot  be  true.
\nThough\tthe morphia injection of the quantity said  to\thave
\nbeen  administered to the boy would ordinarily\tbring  about
\ndrowsiness and relief from pain, the evidence, was that\t the
\nboy  was unconscious.  It seems that it was because of\tthat
\nfact  that  Dr. Irani had refrained from giving\t the  second
\ninjection.  The second result that follows from this part of
\nthe evidence of respondent 1 is that if the fracture had not
\nbeen  reduced  but that the appellant had  only\t used  light
\ntraction for immobilising the injured leg and had  postponed
\nreduction  of  the fracture, it was hardly  likely  that  he
\nwould  not  communicate that fact to respondent 1.  In\tthat
\nevent, it is not possible that respondent 1 would decide  to
\nleave for Dhond at 6 P.m. There would also be no question of
\nthe appellant in that case giving the assurance that it\t was
\nall  right with the boy.  That such an assurance  must\thave
\nbeen given is borne out by the fact that respondent 1 did in
\nfact  leave Poona for Dhond that very evening.\t That  would
\nnot have happened if reduction of the
\n215<\/span>
\nfracture had been postponed and only immobilisation had been
\ndone.\tThe  assurance\tgiven by the  appellant\t upon  which
\nrespondent 1 left Poona for Dhond implies, on the  contrary,
\nthat  whatever\twas to be done had been done  And  that\t the
\npresence  of  respondent 1 was no longer  necessary  as\t the
\nboy’s  condition  thereafter was satisfactory and  he  would
\ncome  out  of  the morphia effect in an hour  or  so.\tThis
\nconclusion  is fortified by the fact that it was  never\t put
\nto, respondent 1 that the appellant had at any time told him
\nthat he had postponed reduction of the fracture and that the
\nonly  thing  he\t had  done  was\t immobilisation\t by  way  of
\npreliminary treatment.\n<\/p>\n
The  letter of the appellant to respondent 1 dated July\t 17,
\n1953,  was,  in our view, rightly highlighted  by  both\t the
\ncourts\twhile considering the rival version of the  parties.
\nIn  our\t view, it was not written only to  express  sympathy
\ntowards\t respondent 1 for the death of his son but  was\t the
\nresult\tof  remorse on the appellant’s part.   If  the\tonly
\ntreatment  he had given was to immobilise the boy’s leg\t and
\nhe  had\t postponed putting the fractured ends  of  the\tbone
\nright at a later date, it is impossible that he would  write
\nthe letter in the manner in which he did.  If he was certain
\nthat fat embolism had set in and the boy’s death was due  to
\ncerebral  embolism, it is impossible that he would write  in
\nthat letter that it was difficult for him even after one and
\na half months to piece together the information which  could
\nexplain the reasons why the boy died.  If his version as  to
\nthe treatment given to the boy were to be correct, there was
\nhardly\tany need for him in that letter to  ask\t forgiveness
\nfor any mistake, either of commission or omission, which  he
\nmight have committed.  It is significant that until he filed
\nhis written statement, he did not at any stage come out in a
\nforthright manner that what he had done on that day was only
\nto  immobilise\tthe  boy’s leg by way  only  of\t preliminary
\ntreatment and that he had postponed to perform reduction  of
\nthe  fracture  at  a later date.   In  the  complaint  which
\nrespondent  1  filed  before  the  Medical  Council  he\t had
\ncategorically  alleged that while putting the boy’s  leg  in
\nplaster\t splints  the appellant had  used  excessive  manual
\nforce for about an hour, that what he, did was reduction  of
\nthe fracture without administering anaesthetic and that\t was
\nthe  cause  of the boy’s death.\t It is strange that  in\t his
\nexplanation  to\t the Council, the appellant did\t not  answer
\nspecifically to those allegations and did not come out\twith
\nthe  version that there was no question of his\thaving\tused
\nexcessive  force  and that too for about an hour as  he\t had
\npostponed reduction and had only given rest to the boy’s leg
\nby immobilising” it in plaster splints.\n<\/p>\n
 As  we\t have already stated, both sides used  a  number  of
\nmedical\t works\tboth  at  the  stage  of  evidence  and\t the
\narguments in the, trial court.\tCertain passages from  these
\nbooks were shown to
\n216<\/span>
\nthe  appellant in cross-examination which pointed  out\tthat
\nplaster casts are used after and not before reduction of the
\nfracture.   The following passage from Hagnuson’s  Fractures
\n(5th ed.) p. 71, was pointed out to him
\n\t      “It  is  important  to reduce  a\tfracture  as
\n\t      promptly\tas possible after it  occurs  before
\n\t      there  is\t induration, delusion of  blood\t and
\n\t      distension fascia”.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tdisagreed with this view and  relied  on  an
\narticle\t by  Moore,  Ext. 295, where  the  author  advocates
\ndelayed\t reduction.  But  in that very\tarticle\t the  author
\nfurther on points out that “if\t   teams which provide well-
\ntrained supervision are available for\timmediate  reduction
\n“it  should  be made.  ‘The author also\t states\t that  where
\nplaster\t cast is used for immobilisation before reduction  a
\ncylindrical  section  3″ to 4” in width at the site  of\t the
\nfracture  should  be removed leaving the rest  of  the\tcast
\nintact.\t  The  appellant did not follow\t these\tinstructions
\nthough he placed considerable reliance on the above  passage
\nfor  his  theory  of delayed  reduction.   Counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  complained that the High Court  perused  several,
\nmedical\t works,\t drew  inspiration  and\t raised\t  inferences
\ntherefrom instead of relying on Dr. Gharpure’s evidence,  an
\nexpert examined by the respondents.  We do not see  anything
\nwrong  in  the\tHigh  Court relying  on\t medical  works\t and
\n,deriving assistance from them.\t His criticism that the High
\nCourt  did not consider Dr. Gharpure’s evidence is also\t not
\ncorrect.   There  was  nothing\twrong  in  the\tHigh   Court
\nemphasising  the opinions of authors of these works  instead
\nof  basing its conclusions on Dr. Gharpure’s evidence as  it
\nwas  alleged  that doctor was a professional  rival  of\t the
\nappellant  and\twas, therefore, unsympathetic  towards\thim.
\nFrom  the  elaborate analysis of the evidence  by  both\t the
\ntrial court and the High Court, it is impossible to say that
\nthey did not consider the evidence before them or that their
\nfindings  were\tthe  result of conjectures  or\tsurmises  or
\ninferences  unwarranted\t by that evidence.   We\t would\tnot,
\ntherefore,  be\tjustified  in  reopening  those\t  concurrent
\nfindings or reappraising the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
As  regards  the cause of death, the respondents’  case\t was
\nthat the boy’s condition was satisfactory at the time be was
\nadmitted  in the appellant’s hospital, that if fat  embolism
\nwas the cause of death, it was due to the heavy traction and
\nexcessive  force  resorted  to\tby  the\t appellant   without
\nadministering anaestbetic to the boy.  The appellant’s case,
\non  the other band, was that fat embolism must have  set  in
\nright from the time of the accident or must have been caused
\non  account of improper or inadequate immobilisation of\t the
\nleg,  at Palshet and the hazards of the long journey in\t the
\ntaxi and that the boy died, therefore, of cerebral embolism.
\nIn  the\t death certificate issued by him, the  appellant  no
\ndoubt had
\n217<\/span>
\nstated that the cause of death was cerebral embolism.  It is
\ntrue  that  some  medical authors have\tmentioned  that\t tat
\nembolism is seldom recognised clinically and is the cause of
\ndeath in over twenty per cent of fatal fracture cases.\t But
\nthese  authors\thave  also stated  that\t diagnosis  of\tthat
\nembolism   can\tbe  made  if  certain  physical\t signs\t are
\ndeliberately  sought by the doctor.  Mental disturbance\t and
\nalteration  of coma with full consciousness  occurring\tsome
\nhours  after a major bone injury should put the\t surgeon  on
\nguard.\t Ho  should  examine the neck and  upper  trunk\t for
\npetechial  haemorrhages.  He should turn down the lower\t lid
\nof  the eye to see petechiae; very occasionally there  would
\nbe fat in the sputum or in the urine, though these are,\t not
\nreliable signs.\t In British Surgical Practice, Vol 3,  (1948
\ned.) p. 378, it is stated,
\n\t      “a  fracture  of\ta  long\t bone  is  the\tmost
\n\t      important cause of fat embolism, and there  is
\n\t      an interval usually of 12-48 hours between the
\n\t      injury and onset of symptoms during which\t the
\n\t      fat  passes  from the contused  and  lacerated
\n\t      narrow to the lungs in sufficient quantity
\n\t      to  produce  effects…………………\t The
\n\t      characteristic and bizarre behaviour noted  in
\n\t      association   with  multiple  cerebral   fatty
\n\t      emboli  usually begins within 2 or 3  days  of
\n\t      the injury.  The preceding pulmonary  symptoms
\n\t      may  be overlooked, especially in a  seriously
\n\t      injured patient.\tThe patient is apathetic and
\n\t      confused,\t answering  simple  questions\twith
\n\t      difficulty;   soon   he\tbecomes\t  completely
\n\t      incoherent.   Some hours later  delirium\tsets
\n\t      in,   often   alternating\t with\tstupor\t and
\n\t      progressing  to  coma.  During  the  delirious
\n\t      phase the patient may be violent.”\n<\/p>\n
In  an\tarticle\t in the Journal of Bone\t Joint\tSurgery,  by
\nNewman,\t (Ext.\t291), the author observes that\tthe  typical
\nclinical  picture  is that of a man in the third  or  fourth
\ndecade\twho in consequence of a road accident has  sustained
\nfracture  of the femur and is admitted to  hospital  perhaps
\nafter  a  long and rough journey with  the  limp  improperly
\nimmobilised,  suffering a considerable shock.  None of\tthe,
\nsymptoms  noted\t above were found by  the  appellant.\t‘The
\nappellant is a surgeon of long experience.  Knowing that two
\ndays  had  elapsed since the accident, that the leg  of\t the
\npatient had not been fully or properly immobilised and\tthat
\nthe patient had journeyed 200 miles in a taxi before  coming
\nto  him, if he had felt that there was a possibility of\t fat
\nembolism having set in, he would surely have looked for\t the
\nsigns.\tAt any rate, if he, had thought that there was\tsome
\nsuch possibility, lie would Surely have warned respondent 1,
\nespecially  as\t-lie happened to be ‘a doctor also  of\tlong
\nstanding.  The evidence shows that the symptoms suggested in
\nthe aforesaid passages were not noticed by the
\nSup.  C. I.\/68–15
\n218<\/span>
\nappellant or respondent 1. The assurance that the  appellant
\ngave  to respondent 1 which induced the latter to return  to
\nDhond, the appellant’s apologetic letter of July 17, 1953 in
\nwhich  he confessed that he had even then not been  able  to
\ngauge, the reasons for the boy’s death, the fact that  while
\ngiving treatment to the boy after 6-30 P.m. he did not\tlook
\nfor the symptoms above mentioned, all go to indicate that in
\norder  to  screen  the real cause of  death,  namely,  shock
\nresulting from his treatment, he had hit upon the, theory of
\ncerebral embolism and tried to bolster it up by stating that
\nit  must  have\tset  in right from  the\t time  the  accident
\noccurred.  The aforesaid letter furnishes a clear indication
\nthat he, was not definite even at that stage that death\t was
\nthe result of embolism or that even if it was so, it was due
\nto the reasons which he later put forward.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, there is no reason to think that the High Court
\nwas  wrong  in its conclusion that death was  due  to  shock
\nresulting  from reduction of the fracture attempted  by\t the
\nappellant  without taking the elementary caution  of  giving
\nanaesthetic  to the patient.  The trial court and  the\tHigh
\nCourt  were, therefore, right in holding that the  appellant
\nwas  guilty  of\t negligence and wrongful  acts\ttowards\t the
\npatient and was liable for damages.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n219<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 128, 1969 SCR (1) 206 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: LAXMAN BALKRISHNA JOSHI Vs. RESPONDENT: TRIMBAK BAPU GODBOLE AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1968 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BACHAWAT, R.S. GROVER, […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLaxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 - 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\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-10T05:13:17+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T05:13:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\"},\"wordCount\":5261,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\",\"name\":\"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T05:13:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 - 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\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-10T05:13:17+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968","datePublished":"1968-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T05:13:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968"},"wordCount":5261,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968","name":"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T05:13:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxman-balkrishna-joshi-vs-trimbak-bapu-godbole-and-anr-on-2-may-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968"}]},{"@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\/238246","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=238246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}