{"id":25147,"date":"2002-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002"},"modified":"2015-08-01T10:24:41","modified_gmt":"2015-08-01T04:54:41","slug":"ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D W Member, B Taimni<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)  <\/p>\n<p>1. In this complaint which pertains to alleged medical negligence by the opposite<br \/>\nparties being the Hospital and two doctors. There is a claim for Rs. 26,90,000\/-. There are<br \/>\ntwo complainants, daughter and father. Medical negligence is alleged qua Neha Kumari<br \/>\nwho at the time of filing the complainant is stated to be of 21 years of age.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. This complaint was filed on 26.9.2000. Operation was performed on Neha<br \/>\nKumari in November 1990. An objection has been raised that the complaint is barred by<br \/>\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Alleged complaint is that Neha Kumari, the first complainant had some problem<br \/>\nin growth of her shoulders and for that she went to Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, opposite party<br \/>\nNo. 1 on 21.11.90. Dr. R. Gopal Krishnan, opposite party No. 2 checked her and advised<br \/>\nC.T. Scan of dorsal spine and lumber spine. After examining C.T. Scan both Dr. R. Gopal<br \/>\nKrishnan, opposite party No. 2 and Dr. Reginold, opposite party No. 3 advised that operation<br \/>\nhad to be performed on the spinal canal of Neha Kumar. This operation was performed on<br \/>\n27.11.90. Complainants alleged that in spite of the two doctors stating that the operation was<br \/>\nsuccessfully performed when it was not so and rather Neha Kumari developed more ailments<br \/>\nand instead of getting better she developed paraplegia and lost urinating and stool sensation<br \/>\nand control. This was brought to the notice of both the doctors and second complainant says<br \/>\nthat again an operation was performed on Neha Kumar on 2.12.90 when he was not made<br \/>\naware of that and some papers were got signed from him. Neha Kumari was discharged from<br \/>\nthe Hospital on 12.3.91 with advice to continue physiotherapy treatment. At the time when<br \/>\nshe was discharged there was no improvement to her lower region which remained senseless.<br \/>\nComplainants were assured that after physiotherapy treatment Neha Kumari will be all right.<br \/>\nComplainants say this physiotherapy treatment continued till 1998 when in the month of<br \/>\nNovember 1998 same ailment developed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Then Neha Kumari started feeling severe pain in both soldiers and abdomen<br \/>\nwhen she again approached to Dr. Raj Gopal Krishnan on 28.11.98 at Indraprasth Apollo<br \/>\nHospital, Delhi. Dr. Raj Gopal Krishnan told the complainants that the rod was fitted<br \/>\ninappropriately at wrong level with segment wires and stated that there was no need to fix<br \/>\nsuch rod and that too inappropriately at wrong levels of segments. This according to Dr. Raj<br \/>\nGopal Krishnan had resulted in the non-functioning of the lower limbs below trunk of Neha<br \/>\nKumari. Dr. Raj Gopal Krishnan further told them the treatment given earlier was not proper<br \/>\nand opposite parties had committed gross negligence while treating Neha Kumari. Dr. Raj<br \/>\nGopal Krishnan then advised removal of the rod and referred Neha Kumari to Dr. Shekhar<br \/>\nAggarwal of Sant Parmanand Hospital, Civil Lines, Delhi as Dr. Raj Gopal Krishnan was going<br \/>\nabroad for a long period. Dr. Shekhar Aggarwal had also stated to have advised for removal<br \/>\nof the rod to avoid further damage. Neha Kumari was again operated on 1.12.98 and<br \/>\nimplant was removed. She was discharged from the Hospital on 3.12.98. It is stated that<br \/>\nthough condition of Neha Kumari became stable but she is still confined to wheel chair and<br \/>\nthere is no ray of hope for any change in her condition. It is alleged that this condition in<br \/>\nwhich she is now is due to negligent act on the part of the opposite parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. It is not clear to us if Dr. Raj Gopal Krishnan of Indraprasth Apollo Hospital,<br \/>\nDelhi is the same person who is impleaded as second opposite party with the name R. Gopal<br \/>\nKrishnan. However, the allegations as contained in the complaint have been stoutly denied by<br \/>\nthe opposite parties. It would appear that the cause of action for filing this complaint is taken<br \/>\nfrom 1998 on discharge of Neha Kumari from Sant Parmanand Hospital, Delhi. Two written<br \/>\nversion have been filed one by the Hospital-opposite party No. 1 and second by opposite party<br \/>\nNos. 2 and 2. Hospital says that it is not liable because both the doctors were consultants and<br \/>\nwere not employees of the Hospital and as such Hospital is not vicariously liable for any<br \/>\nwrong doing on their part. This is not correct as in the case of Basant Seth v. Regency<br \/>\nHospital-Original Petition No. 99\/94 we have already held that for any negligence on the part<br \/>\nof the consultant, Hospital would be liable. Dr. R. Gopal Krishnan, opposite party No. 2 is<br \/>\nthe Orthopaedic Surgeon and opposite party No. 3 Dr. Reginold is a Neurosurgeon. They<br \/>\nsaid it is unbelievable that Neha Kumari had physiotherapy for 8-1\/2 years and there is no<br \/>\nrecord to support this allegation. They further say that it is false to allege that Dr. Raj Gopal<br \/>\nKrishnan informed the complainants that rod was fitted inappropriately and at wrong level<br \/>\nwhich resulted in the non-functioning of the lower limbs of Neha Kumari.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Both the opposite parties said that Neha Kumari complained of lateral bending<br \/>\nof dorsal spine and multiple complex deformities of spine and scolioses of dorsal spine with<br \/>\nmultiple birth defects of spine and spinal cord, since birth increasing progressively. She was<br \/>\nfirst operated at 4 months of age on her spine for myelomeningocele a congenital doformity<br \/>\nand birth defect of spine and spinal cord. She used to wear spinal brace and belt and had other<br \/>\ntreatment in between. She has a family history of developing paralysis, which here grandfather<br \/>\nhad. On detailed investigations Neha Kumari was found to have multiple congenital complex<br \/>\nproblems in kyphoscoliotic doformity with weakness and wasting of right upper limbs and (i)<br \/>\ncomplex khyphoscoliotic deformity of the mid dorsal spine with hemivertibrae at the D5 and D6<br \/>\nspinal levels and spina bifida of the D6 &amp; D7 vertebrae, (ii) diastematomyelia of the lumbar<br \/>\nspine at L1&amp;L2 levels with interposition of a bony spurt at L1 and L2 levels, (iii) a large spinal<br \/>\nbifida of the posterior neural arches involving the L1 to L5 vertebrae and (iv) an irregular<br \/>\nextradural soft tissue lesion that was a convex impression on the thickened posterior wall of<br \/>\nlumbar thecal sac L1, L2, L3 vertebrae level and post operative changes of L1, L4. This<br \/>\nshowed that Neha Kumari had congenital spinal doformities which can be incredibly severe, can<br \/>\nresult in death from cor pulmolane, paralegia and can be associated with a multitude of other<br \/>\nproblems.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Thereafter, opposite parties have stated how investigations were conducted and<br \/>\nhow surgery was performed. Paras 13, 14 and 15 of the written version of opposite parties 2<br \/>\nand 3 describe the surgery on Neha Kumar performed on 27.11.90 and re-exploration on<br \/>\n2.12.90 and her discharge from the hospital:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;13. These Opposite Parties state that on 27.11.1990 the 1st Complainant was<br \/>\ntaken up for surgery under general Anaesthesia with the patient prone, a midline<br \/>\nincision was done on the Dorsal Spine. On exposure, she was confirmed to<br \/>\nhave a bony bar extending from D4 to D7 on the concave side of the dorsal<br \/>\nscoliosis deformity which is the cause of complex Kyphoscoliotic deformity of<br \/>\nDorsal Spine. The body bar was excised and deformity corrected and Luque<br \/>\nRod System D3, D8 (A STANDARD SPINAL, UNIVERSAL ACCEPTED<br \/>\nSTABILIZATION SYSTEM). LUQUE ROD SYSTEM is where two &#8220;L&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>shaped rods are held on either side of the spine by multiple inter laminar wires<br \/>\nto hold the spine straight after correction and prevent the spine from collapsing.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. These Opposite Parties state that post operatively she developed<br \/>\nNeurological Vascular Complication weakness and parapersis of both lower<br \/>\nlimbs with progressive weakness and paralysis including bladder and bowel<br \/>\ninvolvement. Unfortunately she developed a known vascular complication of<br \/>\nspinal surgery. Specially associated with Scoiolsis and Congenital Scoliosis<br \/>\nDeformities correction surgery of the spine. It is submitted that this vascular<br \/>\ncomplication of paraplegia is well documented in all textbooks. To determine<br \/>\nthe cause of the above complications, she had a Myelogram done on 1.12.1990.<br \/>\nThis was fully explained to the patient and 2nd Complainant\/relative and written<br \/>\nconsent obtained for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. These opposite parties submit that Myelogram showed a block at D3-D4<br \/>\nlevel. Hence it was decided to explore the operative site to give the benefit<br \/>\nof doubt to the patient and one does not lose anything in the exploring of<br \/>\nwound. On 2.12.1990, she was taken for re-exploration of wound. On<br \/>\nexploration a small clot was found sitting on the cord which was removed. The<br \/>\nspine was found to be stable and hence would closed. Postoperatively she<br \/>\nrecovered partially, continue of the bladder and bowels regained. Motor and<br \/>\nsensory improvement was seen on both lower limbs. Pain was also felt in<br \/>\nlower limbs. She was kept in the hospital for 52 days where she was on a spinal<br \/>\nbrace and was mobilized on a wheel chair and was able to stand with support,<br \/>\nshe was discharged from the Hospital with advice of physiotherapy to be<br \/>\ncontinued. It is submitted that following this she never came or contacted<br \/>\nthese opposite Parties for follow up after discharge. On discharge the parents<br \/>\nalso presented a table lamp to the Second Opposite party in appreciation of<br \/>\nservice rendered.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8. It is the two doctors then add that Neha Kumari suffered from complex birth<br \/>\ndefects of the spine and whole body as evident from pre-operative C.T. Scan. She and her<br \/>\nparents were fully explained and aware of these problems. They had also previously contacted<br \/>\na surgeon in Bombay and Patna. These Opposite Parties also explained in detail regarding the<br \/>\nproblem and complications of surgery and then only consent for surgery was taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. In the rejoinder to written version filed by the complainants we find it is more<br \/>\nargumentative where reference has been made to various excerpts from medical books. We,<br \/>\nhowever, need not go into that. From the pleadings we find that both the opposite party Nos.<br \/>\n2 and 3 are honest in their approach. The question that has been raised at preliminary stage<br \/>\nis about limitation in filing this complaint on 26.9.2000 when Neha Kumari was discharged<br \/>\nfrom the Hospital on 12.3.91 till the complainants again consulted Dr. Raj Gopal Krishnan of<br \/>\nIndraprasth Apollo Hospital at Delhi on 28.11.98. Complaint is silent as to what further<br \/>\ntreatment, if any, Neha Kumari took and there is nothing to substantiate that she was having<br \/>\nphysiotherapy treatment for all these years. No sufficient cause has been shown as to why<br \/>\ncomplaint could not be filed within the period of limitation prescribed. We are unable to find<br \/>\nany reason for condoning the delay in filing this complaint. We are also unable to subscribe to<br \/>\nthe statement put forward by the complainants that they came to know alleged medical<br \/>\nnegligence of the opposite parties only on 28.11.98. A theory which has no basis is sought to<br \/>\nbe built to come within the period of limitation. We are unable to accept the statement of the<br \/>\ncomplainants that they came to know about operation being inappropriately performed by the<br \/>\nopposite parties only in November, 1998. Moreover, we do not find it is a case medical<br \/>\nnegligence as alleged. Complainants have not denied that Neha Kumari was suffering from<br \/>\nailments from the very birth and that she was operated upon when she was only four years of age.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. We, therefore, dismiss this complaint as barred by limitation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Consumer Disputes Redressal Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002 Bench: D W Member, B Taimni ORDER D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President) 1. In this complaint which pertains to alleged medical negligence by the opposite parties being the Hospital and two doctors. There is [&hellip;]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar ... vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar ... vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-01T04:54:41+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\\\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T04:54:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1884,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\\\/O Shri Amar ... vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T04:54:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\\\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar ... vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar ... vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-01T04:54:41+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T04:54:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002"},"wordCount":1884,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002","name":"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar ... vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T04:54:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neha-kumari-do-shri-amar-vs-apollo-hospitals-dr-r-gopal-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms. Neha Kumari, D\/O Shri Amar &#8230; vs Apollo Hospitals, Dr. R. Gopal &#8230; on 27 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/25147","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=25147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}