Dismissed

Dr. Nimita Bharti v. Smt. Radha Sain W/O Shri Vishnu Sain

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2022CW/2219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil writ petition challenging an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioners alleged no negligence and claimed wrongful compensation. The Court held the Adalat's findings of negligence were proper and devoid of legal infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dr. Nimita Bharti Vs Smt. Radha Sain W/O Shri Vishnu Sain — Rajasthan HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2219/2019

¶3

Dr.Nimita Bharti, Second Unit Incharge Jaipuria Hospital, Milap Nagar, JLN Marg, Jaipur

¶4

Jaipuria Hospital through Superintendent/In-Charge, Address Milap Nagar, JLN Marg, Jaipur

¶5

Public Health and Medical Services, Govt. of Rajasthan through Director, Address A-2, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur through Officer In-Charge

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Radha Sain W/o Shri Vishnu Sain, Aged 27 Years, R/o 18, Shrinath Colony, Near Airport, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bharat Saini, Addl. Govt. Counsel.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶12

Order

¶13

20/09/2022

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Bharat Saini submitted that order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dated 31.07.2018, challenged before this Court, has been complied with, as per directions issued on 10.07.2019 and the petitioners have deposited the entire amount along-with interest, as was directed by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 31.07.2018.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed an error in allowing the claim of the respondent and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners while treating the respondent.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-2219/2019]

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent who was admitted in Jaipuria Hospital, was already having complications and immediately, the Doctor and Senior Nurse staff, considering the condition of respondent, conducted the delivery in Labour Room and after such a procedure, she was shifted to Operation Theater.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Permanent Lok Adalat that the petitioners did not conduct the operation in a proper manner and as such, there was excessive bleeding, cannot be proved from the facts, which were placed before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Permanent Lok Adalat that the Doctors were negligent, as they left certain instrument in the body of the respondent, is also not proved from any stretch of imagination.

¶21

Learned counsel further submitted that the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation were not warranted in the present facts of the case.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

¶23

This Court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat has considered all the relevant factors for awarding compensation and other loss to the respondent on account of negligence of the Doctors.

¶24

This Court further finds that the only plea taken, before the Permanent Lok Adalat by the petitioners, was of not having the ulterior motive in treating the patient i.e. respondent, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat has found that the Doctor and Nursing Staffs, who were treating the respondent, failed to

¶25

(3 of 3) [CW-2219/2019]

¶26

discharge their obligation in a proper manner and there was an apparent negligence in treating the respondent and as such, she had to undergo tremendous pain and mental agony.

¶27

This Court finds that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such, the present writ petition being devoid of any force, stands dismissed.

¶28

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶29

Himanshu Soni/Monika/9

Dr. Nimita Bharti v. Smt. Radha Sain W/O Shri Vishnu Sain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nimita Bharti v. Smt. Radha Sain W/O Shri Vishnu Sain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Sharma Vs Registrar Coop Soci and Anr.

Jado Singh Son of Karan Singh by Caste Dhakad Vs Ramji Lal Son of Basanta by Caste Kumhar

Manisha Sethi W/O Shri Gurmeet Sethi Vs Rajesh Natani S/O Shri Satyanarayan Natani

M/S Eagle Paints Vs Chairman Cum MD Rajasthan Stat

Jagdish and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat Manji Ors.

Devendra Samota and Ors. Vs State Medical an Healt Dept Ors.