Mr. Thejangulie and Anr. Vs Christian Institute of Health Sciences and Research and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr. Thejangulie and Anr. Vs Christian Institute of Health Sciences and Research and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted: I.A.(Civil) No. 58/2024 stands closed, I.A.(Civil) No. 65/2024 is closed (given a quietus) at the petitioners' instance, and the directions passed in the order dated 17.07.2025 stand recalled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the withdrawn prayer Nos. (d), (e) and (f) of the accompanying writ petition needed reinstatement, given that they are consequential upon the independent negligence inquiry sought in prayer No. (c). +3 more

Court's answer

If the relief at prayer No. (c) (independent negligence inquiry) is granted and there is a report of negligence, the consequential actions would automatically follow, and appropriate directions can be passed when there is apparent negligence.

Ratio / Principle

The reliefs sought in prayer Nos. (e) and (f) (reimbursement of medical expenses paid to respondent No. 1's Hospital and waiver of the pending bills) have already become infructuous, since respondent No. 1 has been incurring all treatment expenditure since 18.02.2022 and the bills have surpassed Rs. 1.2 Crores; if the prayer (c) inquiry report favours the petitioners showing negligence by respondent No. 1, consequential directions can very well be issued.

Key takeaways

As the reliefs at prayer Nos. (d), (e) and (f) are only consequential upon the report of an inquiry to be conducted, their withdrawal would not prejudice the petitioners from obtaining the benefits should the independent-inquiry report find that respondent No. 1 and its Doctors acted in gross negligence.ratio¶56
I.A.(Civil) No. 58/2024 can be closed with the observations made by the Court, and accordingly stands closed.ratio¶57
Taking into consideration the petitioners' submissions that they would not like to go ahead with the reliefs sought in I.A.(Civil) No. 65/2024, and that the primacy of the present dispute lies in the welfare of the child, the Court observed that the issue involved in the application can be given a quietus by closing the same.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench), Justice Devashis Baruah, order dated 01.09.2025 in I.A.(Civil) No. 65/2024 (also disposing of linked I.A.(Civil) No. 58/2024) arising from a writ petition by Mr. Thejangulie and Mrs. Barbara Nunes (in person) against Christian Institute of Health Sciences and Research (CIHSR), Dimapur and others: (i) I.A.(Civil) No. 58/2024, seeking reinstatement of withdrawn writ-petition prayer Nos. (d), (e) and (f), was closed - the Court held these reliefs merely consequential upon the independent inquiry into medical negligence sought in prayer No. (c), so their withdrawal causes the petitioners no prejudice, and prayer Nos. (e)/(f) (reimbursement of medical expenses; waiver of pending bills) are infructuous as CIHSR has borne all treatment costs of the petitioners' child since 18.02.2022, the bills having surpassed Rs. 1.2 crores; (ii) I.A.(Civil) No. 65/2024, which sought initiation of criminal proceedings against respondent No. 7 (the petitioners' former counsel), was closed at the petitioners' request in view of the primacy of the child's welfare, and the directions passed in the order dated 17.07.2025 (under which the Registry had submitted a report) stand recalled; (iii) the Court noted the petitioners' intention to pursue the negligence grievance before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, to be considered when the writ petition is dealt with.

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC020000132022

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/65/2024

MR. THEJANGULIE AND ANR HOUSE NO. 77 WARD 8 MEDZIPHEMA DIMAPUR NAGALAND 797106

2: MRS BARBARA NUNES HOUSE NO. 77 WARD 8 MEDZHIPHEMA DIMAPUR NAGALAND 797106 VERSUS

CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND RESEARCH AND 5 ORS 4TH MILE DIMAPUR P.B. NO. 31 P.O. ARTC NAGALAND 797115

2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 797001

3:NAGALAND MEDICAL COUNCIL PMTI COMPLEX

Page No.# 2/9

MERHILITSA COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND 797001 4:THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 797001 5:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OD HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE ROOM NO. 348-A- WING NIRMAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110001 6:ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENSES (AIIMS) DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ANSARI NAGAR NEW DELHI 11002 -----------Advocate for : THEJANGULIE Advocate for : appearing for CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND RESEARCH AND 5 ORS

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/58/2024

MR. THEJANGULIE AND ANR HOUSE NO.77 WARD 8 MEDZIPHEMA DIMAPUR NAGALAND 797106 2: MRS BARBARA NUNES M HOUSE NO.77 WARD 8 MEDZIPHEMA DIMAPUR

Page No.# 3/9

NAGALAND 797106 VERSUS

CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (CIHSR) AND 5 ORS 4TH MILE DIMAPUR P.B. NO.31 P.O ARTC NAGALAND 797115

2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND

KOHIMA NAGALAND 7979001

3:NAGALAND MEDICAL COUNCIL

PMTI COMPLEX

MERHULIETSA COLONY

KOHIMA NAGALAND 797001

4:THE STATE OF NAGALAND

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND

KOHIMA

NAGALAND 797001

5:THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

ROOM NO. 348-A-WING NIRMAN BHAVAN

NEW DELHI 110001

Page No.# 4/9

6:ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (AIIMS) DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ANSARI NAGAR

NEW DELHI 11002

For the Applicant(s) : Mrs. Barbara Nunes, Petitioner in person Mr. Thejangulie, Petitioner in person

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. V. Suokhrie, Addl. A.G. Mr. S. Abraham, Advocate

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 01.09.2025

I.A.(Civil) No. 58/2024 is filed by the petitioners

seeking reinstatement of the prayers in the accompanying writ petition being prayer Nos. (d), (e) and (f) which were withdrawn on the basis of an application being filed which the petitioners state that the same has been filed without being duly explained about the effect of the said application.

I.A.(Civil) No. 65/2024 is an application filed by the petitioners seeking initiation of criminal

Page No.# 5/9 proceedings against the respondent No. 7 who is the counsel, who had earlier represented the petitioners in the accompanying writ proceedings. Though the application was disposed of vide the order dated 17.07.2025, but in view of the directions so passed therein, it is necessary that some orders are required to be passed in connection with the said application, more so, taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioners in person.

The petitioners herein are present in person. This Court has also heard Mr. S. Abraham, the learned counsel who represents the respondent No. 1.

Let this Court now duly take note of, as to what, are the reliefs which were sought for in prayer Nos. (d), (e) and (f) of the accompanying writ petition.

The relief so sought for in prayer No. (d) is a direction upon the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 who were subsequently arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the accompanying writ petition to take appropriate legal actions against the respondent No. 1 as well as those Doctors who were earlier arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

It is relevant to take note of the relief which have been sought for in prayer No. (c), which is a direction

Page No.# 6/9 sought for conducting an independent inquiry in respect to the negligence committed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were the doctors who have treated the child of the petitioners and upon whom allegations of negligence have been leveled), which have resulted in a complete disablement of the child of the petitioners.

In the opinion of this Court, if the relief at prayer No. (c) is granted and there is a report of negligence, the consequential actions would therefore automatically follow, and appropriate directions can be passed when there is an apparent negligence.

The relief Nos. (e) and (f) relates to issuance of directions upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reimburse the medical expenses paid by the petitioners to the respondent No. 1’s Hospital for treatment of their child and to waive the pending bills of the petitioners’ child incurred in the respondent No. 1’s Hospital.

It is relevant to observe that since 18.02.2022 till date, the respondent No. 1 admittedly has been incurring all the expenditure towards the treatment of the petitioners’ child and as submitted by Mr. S. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Page No.# 7/9 the respondent No. 1, the bills of the petitioners as on date has surpassed Rs. 1.2 Crores. Under such circumstances, the relief which has been sought for in prayer Nos. (e) and (f) have already become infructuous. Even otherwise, if report submitted pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in respect to the prayer No. (c) is found to be in favour of the petitioners thereby showing that there was a negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1, consequential directions can very well be issued.

Considering the above, as the reliefs at prayer Nos. (d), (e) and (f) are only consequential upon the report of an inquiry to be conducted, the withdrawal of the said reliefs would not prejudice the petitioners to get the benefits in the circumstance, the report pursuant to an independent inquiry is given that the respondent No. 1 as well as its Doctors acted in gross negligence.

Under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the instant application being I.A. (Civil) No. 58/2024 can be closed with the observations made herein above. Accordingly, I.A. (Civil) No. 58/2024 stands closed.

The petitioners who are present in person

Page No.# 8/9 submitted that their entire anxiety is the welfare of the child and how the child can be provided with the appropriate treatment. The petitioners in person therefore submitted that the application being I.A. (Civil) No. 65/2024 though has merits, but they would not like to digress from the main issue i.e. the life and protection of their child and as such they would not like to further proceed with the reliefs sought for in the said application being I.A.(Civil) No. 65/2024.

The records reveal that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court dated 17.07.2025, the Registry had submitted a report. Taking into consideration the submissions of the petitioners in person that they would not like to go ahead with the reliefs sought for and this Court further taking into consideration the primacy of the present dispute lies in the welfare of the child observes that the issue involved in the present application can be given a quietus by closing the same. Accordingly, the directions passed in the order dated 17.07.2025 stands recalled.

The petitioners in person also submitted that insofar as the negligence aspect is concerned they would also like to approach the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum as there had been a continuing

Page No.# 9/9 wrong committed by the respondent No. 1 alongwith its Doctors. This aspect, this Court shall consider while dealing with the writ petition wherein certain directions have been passed separately today.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant