Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 4010 OF 2010

ASHISH KUMAR MAZUMDAR ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS AISHI RAM BATRA CHARITABLE  HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4011-4012 of 2010

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Suit  No.  3413  of  1991  filed  by  one  Ashish  Kumar  

Mazumdar  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  plaintiff’)  was  

decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi  

awarding  a  sum of  Rs.  7  lakhs  with  interest  @ 12% per  

annum on account of damages for injuries suffered by the  

plaintiff  while  undergoing treatment  in  the Batra Hospital,  

Delhi.   The  aforesaid  judgment  and  decree  passed  on  

1

Page 2

02.12.2008  was  challenged  in  appeal  before  the  Division  

Bench of the High Court by the defendant in the suit i.e. the  

trust managing the hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

defendant’).  The plaintiff had also filed a separate appeal  

challenging the quantum of damages awarded and seeking  

enhancement thereof.  The Division Bench of the High Court  

by a common order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the appeal  

filed by the defendant trust and allowed the appeal filed by  

the  plaintiff  enhancing  the  amount  of  damages  awarded  

from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 11 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12%  

per annum.  Not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed Civil Appeal  

No.4010 of 2010, whereas aggrieved by the dismissal of its  

appeal, the defendant trust has filed the connected appeals  

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4011-4012 of 2010).

2. We  have  heard  Mr.  S.B.  Upadhyay,  learned  senior  

counsel  for  the  plaintiff  and  Mr.  S.S.  Khanjuda,  learned  

counsel for the defendant.

3. According to the plaintiff, he was admitted as an indoor  

patient in the Batra Hospital on 27.10.1988 and was lodged  

in Room No.305 on the third floor of the hospital.  He was  

2

Page 3

running high fever and was in a delirious state.  In the night  

intervening 31.10.1988 and 01.11.1988, at about 2.20 a.m.,  

the plaintiff’s sister, one Kajal, who was staying with him in  

the room had noticed the absence of the plaintiff from the  

room.  She promptly informed the staff nurse on duty and a  

search was conducted to trace out the plaintiff in the course  

of which a security guard, Hans Raj, found the plaintiff lying  

on the ground floor in the oncology gallery of the hospital  

and  at  a  distance  of  50  yards  from  a  point  immediately  

below the window of room No. 305.  The plaintiff  suffered  

multiple  fracture  of  lumbar  vertebrae  with  complete  

dislocation  of  the  spinal  cord  and  despite  treatment  he  

became a  paraplegic  i.e.  100% disabled  below the  waist.  

Though the plaint is silent on the circumstances in which the  

injuries were caused or the manner in which the same were  

sustained, according to the plaintiff,  as at the time of the  

incident he was an indoor patient in the hospital it was the  

duty  and  responsibility  of  the  hospital  authorities  to  take  

care of the plaintiff who was suffering from high fever and  

was in a delirious state.  The plaintiff had alleged that it is on  

account of the absence of due and reasonable care on the  

3

Page 4

part of the hospital authorities that the incident could occur  

disabling the plaintiff for the rest of his life.  According to the  

plaintiff  though  the  injuries  suffered  by  him  had  not  

immediately affected his employment as a Junior Assistant in  

Punjab  National  Bank the  same had severely  affected  his  

service prospects.  Accordingly, the suit in question was filed  

seeking damages to the extent of Rs. 58 lakhs; the claim,  

however, was restricted to Rs. 25 lakhs on account of the  

plaintiff’s inability to pay the requisite court fee on the rest  

of the amount.   

4. The defendant trust, in its written statement, took the  

stand that the hospital had permitted the plaintiff’s sister to  

stay in the room as an attendant and that the plaintiff had  

himself jumped out of the window of his room despite the  

presence of his sister leading to the injuries suffered.   On  

the said broad facts the defendant denied the allegation of  

negligence and absence of due care on its part as claimed  

by the plaintiff in the suit.   

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned  

Trial  Judge  framed  four  issues  for  trial  in  the  suit.  Five  

4

Page 5

witnesses  including  the  plaintiff  himself  (PW-1),  his  sister  

(PW-2) and his brother (PW-3) were examined.  One Dr. R.K.  

Srivastava (PW-5) was also examined to prove the disability  

certificate showing the extent of the disability of the plaintiff.  

To controvert  the case of  the plaintiff,  the defendant had  

examined one Dr. Arun Dewan (DW-1) who had treated the  

plaintiff  and the security  guard Hans Raj  (DW-2) who had  

found the plaintiff in an injured state.

6. The learned Trial  Judge came to the conclusion that,  

having regard to the layout of the room and the location of  

the window and also having regard to the precarious health  

condition of the plaintiff on the day of the incident (he was  

running  high  fever),  it  was  not  possible  to  accept  the  

contention  of  the  defendant  that  the  plaintiff  had himself  

jumped out of the window resulting in the injuries sustained.  

On  the  contrary  the  learned  Trial  Judge  came  to  the  

conclusion  that  the  facts  established  by  the  evidence  on  

record  attracted  the  principle  of  res  ipsa  loquitur and,  

therefore, it was for the defendant to prove the absence of  

any  negligence  and  due  care  and  attention  on  its  part.  

5

Page 6

Proceeding, the learned Trial Judge was also of the view that  

duty of a hospital is not limited to diagnosis and treatment  

but extends to looking after the safety and security of the  

patients,  particularly,  those  who  are  sick  or  under  

medication  and  therefore  can  become  delirious  and  

incoherent.  Adverting to the facts before him, the learned  

Judge took the view that it is evident that in the present case  

the plaintiff, who was suffering from high fever, had gone out  

for a stroll in the middle of the night being unable to sleep.  

His absence from the room on being noticed by his sister  

(PW-2) a search was organized and the plaintiff was found  

lying  on  the  ground  floor  in  the  oncology  gallery  of  the  

hospital with the injuries in question.  On the said basis, the  

learned Trial Judge concluded that, in the present case, the  

hospital  should  be  held  liable  for  not  maintaining  the  

necessary vigil in the hospital premises to ensure the safety  

of its patients and it is on account of the absence of such  

vigil that the plaintiff, despite his poor health, was able to  

walk around and in the process had sustained the injuries in  

question.  So far as the quantum of damages is concerned,  

6

Page 7

the learned Trial  Judge quantified the same at  Rs.7 lakhs  

along with interest at 12% per annum thereon.

7. In  appeal,  the  Division  Bench  reiterated  the  findings  

recorded by the learned Trial Judge holding the same to be  

justified  in  the  totality  of  the  facts  proved  in  the  case.  

Additionally,  the  Division  Bench was  of  the  view that  the  

plaintiff was entitled to a total amount of Rs.11 lakhs by way  

of damages which was quantified in the following manner :

(i) For  loss  of  future  prospects  in  employment

Rs. 4,00,000.00

(ii) For keeping an attendant Rs. 4,00,000.00

(iii) For non-pecuniary loss including pain  and suffering, loss of limb etc.

Rs. 3,00,000.00

The aforesaid amount of damages was directed to carry  

interest  @  12%  from  the  date  of  filing  of  the  suit  i.e.  

29.10.1991.  

8. The maxim  res ipsa loquitur in its classic form has  

been stated by Erle C.J.

7

Page 8

(1) “……..where  the  thing  is  shown  to  be  under the management of the defendant  or his servants, and the accident is such  as in the ordinary course of things does  not  happen  if  those  who  have  the  management use proper care, it affords  reasonable evidence, in the absence of  explanation by the defendants, that the  accident arose from want of care.”1

The  maxim  applies  to  a  case  in  which  certain  facts  

proved  by  the  plaintiff,  by  itself,  would  call  for  an  

explanation from the defendant without the plaintiff having  

to  allege  and  prove  any  specific  act  or  omission  of  the  

defendant.   

9. In  Shyam  Sunder  and  Others  vs.  The  State  of  

Rajasthan2 it has been explained that the principal function  

of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if the  

plaintiff was invariably required to prove the precise cause of  

the accident when the relevant facts are unknown to him but  

are  within  the  knowledge  of  the  defendant.   It  was  also  

explained that the doctrine would apply to a situation when  

the mere happening of the accident is more consistent with  

the negligence of the defendant than with other causes.

1  Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks, (1865) 3 H & C 596, 601 2 1974 (1) SCC 690

8

Page 9

10. We have considered the case of the respective parties  

and the evidence adduced in support thereof; the judgment  

under appeal as well as the view taken by the learned Trial  

Judge  besides  the  arguments  and  contentions  advanced  

before us.  The learned courts have applied the principle of  

res ipsa loquitur  to the present case to cast the burden of  

proving  that  there  was  no  negligence  on  the  defendant.  

Thereafter,  the learned Trial  Judge as well  as the Division  

Bench of the High Court has held the defendant liable for  

negligence and failure to take due care of the plaintiff who  

was  an  indoor  patient  in  the  hospital.   The  aforesaid  

conclusions reached is on an elaborate consideration of the  

evidence  and  materials  on  record  and  after  a  detailed  

discussion  of  the  stand  of  the  rival  parties.   On  a  

consideration of the facts of the present case we do not find  

any  error  in  the  application  of  the  principle  of  res  ipsa  

loquitur  to  the present case.   In  so far  as the findings of  

negligence  and  absence  of  due  care  of  the  defendant  is  

concerned,  we  are  of  the  view  that  such  findings  being  

concurrent  findings  of  fact  the  same  ought  not  to  be  

reopened by us in the appeal filed by the defendant-hospital  

9

Page 10

under  Article  136 of  the  Constitution.   Any  such  exercise  

would  be  wholly  inappropriate  to  the  extraordinary  and  

highly discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court by the  

Constitution.  Even  otherwise,  we  do  not  find  anything  

inherently  improbable  or  outrageously  illogical  in  the  

conclusions reached by the learned Trial Judge as affirmed in  

appeal.   The  appeals  filed  by  the  defendant-hospital  are,  

therefore, dismissed.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,  

we are of the view that the three broad heads considered by  

the  Division  Bench  for  award  of  damages  are  sufficiently  

representative  of  the  claim  of  the  plaintiff.   The  precise  

quantum of  compensation that  should  be awarded in  any  

given case cannot and, in fact, need not be determined with  

mathematical exactitude or arithmetical precision.  So long  

the compensation awarded broadly represents what could be  

the  entitlement  of  a  claimant  in  any  given  case  the  

discretion  vested  in  the  trial  court  and  the  regular  first  

appellate court  ought not  to  be lightly  interfered.   Taking  

into account the facts before us and having regard to the  

10

Page 11

basis  on  which  damages  have  been  awarded,  we  do  not  

consider the same to be either inadequate or inappropriate  

so as to justify interference.  Accordingly, the appeal filed by  

the plaintiff is also dismissed.  

12.  Consequently  and  in  the  light  of  the  aforegoing  

discussions, both sets of appeals are dismissed.

...…………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]

.........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

…..........……………………J. [N.V. RAMANA]

NEW DELHI, APRIL   22, 2014.

11