Dismissed¶78

Sri Ramakrishnappa v. Shushrusha Nursing Home

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2025CRP/315/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP No. 315 of 2019; Section 115 CPC; revision against money decree; recovery of hospital/nursing home charges; liability of legal representatives of deceased patient; Shushrusha Nursing Home v. LRs of Ramakrishnappa; non-service of legal notice defence; defendant No.2 brother ex-parte; Rs.69,350/- with 18% p.a. interest; SC No.1049/2017; Ist Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM Bengaluru; conditional order dated 25.11.2019 non-compliance; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

That defendant No.2 alone was responsible for payment of the hospital charges cannot be a ground for denial of the decreetal claim by the revision petitioners, who are the wife and children of Ramakrishnappa. ¶70

Sri Ramakrishnappa Vs Shushrusha Nursing Home — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petitioners, as the wife and children of the deceased defendant No.1 (Ramakrishnappa), are liable to pay the decreetal amount notwithstanding their contention that defendant No.2 alone was responsible for the hospital charges. +2 more

¶70

Court's answer

¶70

Ratio / Principle

Whether defendant No.2 did not take the revision petitioners into confidence before admitting Ramakrishnappa to the plaintiff's hospital is not a subject matter to be considered in this revision petition, inasmuch as Ramakrishnappa was cured of all his medical ailments, discharged from the hospital, and later died.

¶74

Key takeaways

The contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioners that they are not liable to pay the decreetal amount cannot be countenanced in law.ratio¶75
Although the conditional order dated 25.11.2019 was not complied with, the Court took up the matter on merits and considered the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (V Srishananda J) dismissed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC filed by the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant (Ramakrishnappa) challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 in S.C.No.1049/2017 of the Ist Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM, Bengaluru, which decreed Shushrusha Nursing Home's suit for recovery of Rs.69,350/- with interest at 18% p.a. against the legal representatives and defendant No.2 (the deceased's brother). Held: the contention that defendant No.2 alone was responsible for the hospital charges, or that he did not take the petitioners into confidence before admission, cannot be a ground to deny the decreetal claim, since the petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased, who was admittedly cured, discharged and later died; the plea based on non-service of the legal notice on the petitioners was likewise rejected as incapable of being countenanced in law. Although the conditional order dated 25.11.2019 was not complied with, the matter was taken up and decided on merits.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 315 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶10

SMT. NEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

¶11

SRI HARISH

¶12

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. ANNAPURNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA

¶16

SMT. VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF YELACHAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S, ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

SHUSHRUSHA NURSING HOME B.B. ROAD, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064 REP. BY ITS MANAGER MR. NARASIMHAMURTHY

¶24

SRI. Y.N. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF HEAD CONSTABLE, AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 092

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶27

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1049/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF AMOUNT.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Heard Sri.Krishna Kishore S., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Balagangadhar G. S., learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶35

Legal representatives of defendant No.1 are the revision petitioners challenging the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in SC No.1049/2017 on the file of Ist Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) dated 27.04.2019 in this revision petition.

¶36

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

¶37

necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶38

3.1. Husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other revision petitioners by name Ramakrishnappa was admitted to the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s hospital for medical treatment.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

3.2. It is contended that Ramakrishnappa was cured

¶42

with his ailments and he was discharged from the hospital but the hospital charges and the treatment bill amount remained unpaid.

¶43

3.3. A legal notice was issued by the plaintiff which was served on defendant No.2 but was not served on the legal representatives of defendant No.1.

¶44

3.4. Ramakrishnappa later died and suit came to be

¶45

filed against the legal representatives of Ramakrishnappa and defendant No.2 who is none other than the brother of Ramakrishnappa.

¶46

3.5. Before the Trial Court, defendant No.2 being the brother of Ramakrishnappa did not appear and he was placed ex-parte.

¶47

3.6. Revision petitioners maintained a defence

¶48

before the Trial Court that it is defendant No.2 who took initiative in admitting Ramakrishnappa to the plaintiff’s hospital and it is his responsibility to clear the bill.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

3.7. It was also contended that since there is no legal notice that was received by the revision petitioners, suit against them is to be dismissed.

¶52

Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, examined the probative value of the documents that were placed on record namely in-patient record vide Ex.P.1 and office copy of the legal notice and three postal acknowledgements vide Exs.P.2 to 5 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered to pay sum of Rs.69,350/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. recoverable from both the revision petitioners as well as defendant No.2.

¶53

Validity of the said order is called in question, in this revision petition.

¶54

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that revision petitioners are daily wage workers and they were not taken into confidence by

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

defendant No.2 who is the brother of Ramakrishnappa and brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 while admitting Ramakrishnappa to the hospital. Therefore, they are unable to pay the decreetal amount.

¶58

He would further contend that legal notice is not served on the present revision petitioners and it was served on defendant No.2 who kept the revision petitioners in dark and therefore, the revision petitioners are not liable to pay the suit claim.

¶59

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that Ramakrishnappa was treated effectively in the hospital and on the assurance of defendant No.2, Ramakrishnappa was discharged from the hospital after curing the ailments. Therefore, the present revision petitioners being the legal representatives of Ramakrishnappa cannot plead that they are not liable to pay the suit claim and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Having heard the arguments of both the sides,

¶64

this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶65

On such perusal of the material on record, conditional order of this Court dated 25.11.2019, is not complied.

¶66

Nevertheless, the matter is taken up on merits

¶67

and took into consideration the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties.

¶68

Admittedly, Ramakrishnappa was cured of all

¶69

his medical ailments after admission into the plaintiff’s hospital.

¶70

Whether at all, defendant No.2 who was alone responsible for the payment of the hospital charges or not cannot be a ground for denial of the decreetal claim by the revision petitioner inasmuch as they are the wife and children of Ramakrishnappa.

¶71

Whether the defendant No.2 did not take the revision petitioners into confidence before admitting

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44024 CRP No. 315 of 2019

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Ramakrishnappa to the plaintiff’s hospital or not cannot be a subject matter to be considered in this revisional petition inasmuch as Ramakrishnappa was cured of all his medical ailments and was discharged from the plaintiff’s hospital and later on, he died.

¶75

Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioners that they are not liable to pay the decreetal amount cannot be countenanced in law.

¶76

Hence, the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed .

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶81

KAV

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 in S.C.No.1049/2017 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of amount (Rs.69,350/- with interest at 18% p.a.) against the revision petitioners and defendant No.2¶28
Ist Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM, Bangalore · 27.04.2019
Prior proceeding
Ramakrishnappa, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the other revision petitioners, was admitted to respondent No.1/plaintiff's hospital for medical treatment.¶38
Prior proceeding
Ramakrishnappa was discharged from the hospital after cure, but the hospital charges and treatment bill amount remained unpaid.¶42
Prior proceeding
Legal notice issued by the plaintiff was served on defendant No.2 but not on the legal representatives of defendant No.1.¶43
Prior proceeding
Ramakrishnappa later died and the suit was filed against his legal representatives and defendant No.2, who is his brother.¶45
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.2 did not appear before the Trial Court and was placed ex-parte.¶46
Prior proceeding
Defence of the revision petitioners: defendant No.2 took the initiative in admitting Ramakrishnappa to the hospital and it was his responsibility to clear the bill.¶48
Prior proceeding
Further defence: since no legal notice was received by the revision petitioners, the suit against them ought to be dismissed.¶51
Prior proceeding
Trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties and examined Ex.P.1 (in-patient record) and Exs.P.2 to 5 (office copy of legal notice and three postal acknowledgements).¶52
Prior proceeding
Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs.69,350/- with interest at 18% p.a., recoverable from the revision petitioners as well as defendant No.2.¶52
Prior proceeding
Notice to respondent No.2 in this revision petition was held sufficient vide order dated 18.07.2022.¶26
Prior proceeding
Conditional order of the High Court dated 25.11.2019 was not complied with by the revision petitioners.¶65

Sri Ramakrishnappa v. Shushrusha Nursing Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramakrishnappa v. Shushrusha Nursing Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pyaru Sab Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Sri S a Gangadharappa Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Chenganda Appacha @ Appachu Vs Chenganda Kalappa S/O Late Kunjappa

Smt.Nikitha a P Vs Sri.S. Ranjith

B C Subramanyam Vs the Commissioner

Sri a. Sivaprakasam Vs Mr Majid Yusuf Patanwala