Gujarat High Court
Bansidhar Kaniyalal Swami vs Dr.C.R.Kakani on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/502/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================
BANSIDHAR KANIYALAL SWAMI & ORS.
Versus
DR.C.R.KAKANI & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS AVANI S MEHTA(1867) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 06/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is
filed by the appellants - original plaintiffs against the judgment and
order dated 26.03.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Court No.15,
City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as "the trial
Court") in Civil Suit No. 4427 of 1986 whereby the trial Court has
dismissed the suit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/502/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
2. Short facts of the present case are that respondent No.1 was
negligent during the course of performing operation for medical
termination of pregnancy of Shantidevi. It is the case of the appellants
that Shantidevi in the company of her husband visited the hospital of
respondent No.1 for complaint of stomach pain due to pregnancy for
which respondent No.1 advised for abortion and advised for operation
and accordingly, appellant No.1 went to hospital of respondent No.1.
It is the case of the appellants that respondent No.1 examined the
patient and obtained consent in writing for operation of abortion and
patient was taken in the operation theater whereas the husband and
children waited outside the operation theater. That respondent No.1
came out from the operation theater and informed appellant No.1 that
operation completed satisfactorily, however, the patient was
unconscious and he assured not to worry as the patient was under the
influence of anesthesia and would regain her consciousness soon.
Thereafter, appellant No.1 went inside the operation theater to see his
wife and found that condition of his wife was very serious and at that
time, two doctors came who were called by respondent No.1 and gave
some treatment to the patient. That inspite of administering the
injunction, the condition of the patient went on deteriorating and
respondent No.1 for the first time informed appellant No.1 and
Banwarilal that condition of the patient was serious and, hence, she
was required to be shifted to some other hospital. It is the case of the
appellants that without taking any consent of the appellant,
respondent No.1 shifted the patient to Shardaben General Hospital for
treatment where under treatment the patient died.
2.1 In view of the above, the appellants have filed the aforesaid
suit, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/502/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
3. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal
against the judgment and order of dismissal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the
material on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has
submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 -
Bansidhar Kaniyalal Swami expired on 31.03.2022 and since he
informed the appellants with regard to the matter, no any instruction
has been received by him and, therefore, in view of the above fact, he
argued the matter on its own merits. Learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that the Court may pass appropriate order.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel and
considered the material placed on record, it appears that during the
pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 expired. On perusal of the
judgment and order of the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the trial
Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the
judgment and order. Thus, the appeal being meritless deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and
proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
