Karnataka High Court
R Venkatesh Kumar vs M. S. Ramaiah Hospital on 28 May, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1723 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
R. VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O LATE V.RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.A/62,
SECTOR II, H.M.T. COLONY,
JALAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 013.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.VENKATESH KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1 . M. S. RAMAIAH HOSPITAL
NEW BEL ROAD,
M.S.RAMAIAH NAGAR,
MSIRT POST,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
REPRESENTED BY HOD,
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY.
2 . DR. PRADEEP
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT,
M.S.RAMAIAH HOSPITAL,
NEW BEL ROAD,
2
M.S.RAMAIAH NAGAR,
MSIRT POST,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
3 . NAGALAKSHMI
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.12/1, 6TH BLOCK,
YADIYUR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 082.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER
DATED:22/03/2017)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96
AND ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2016 PASSED IN OS
NO.3883/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 15), BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2024 THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 27.03.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.05.2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff under
Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1(a) and 2 of CPC for setting
aside the judgment passed by the VIII Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.3883/2011 vide
judgment dated 04-01-2016.
2. Heard the arguments of appellant-party in
person and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The appellant was plaintiff and respondents
were defendants before the Trial Court. The rank of the
parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of
convenience.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is
that he is an employee of HMT Ltd. CSD and have been
serving for the company for more than 23 years. On 17-06-
2005, he suffered some illness, hence, he went to the HMT
Hospital. After the preliminary check up, the doctor at HMT
Hospital referred the appellant-plaintiff to M.S. Ramaiah
Hospital on the same day with a note that the appellant is
suffering from tiredness. With the said note along with
defendant No.3, appellant visited respondent No.1-Hospital
on the same day. Defendant No.3 registered the name of
the plaintiff and straightaway took him to psychiatry
department. The plaintiff after waiting for some time went
for searching his wife and he found her in the Psychiatry
Department with defendant No.2-the doctor-Psychiatrist.
On being enquired as to why the plaintiff was being treated
in the Psychiatry Department, the Doctor informed the
plaintiff that the general check up will also be done here and
after preliminary enquiry, the doctor advised the plaintiff to
get admit in the hospital for treatment. The plaintiff having
no idea of the reason for tiredness got admitted to the
hospital as an in patient and was discharged from the
hospital after 3 days and as per the instructions of the
doctor, the appellant regularly visited the hospital for further
check up and also took the medicines and injections
prescribed by the doctor. He further contended that the
plaintiff's relationship with his wife was not in good terms.
Some cases were filed by her and counter case also filed by
him. During the year 2006, the appellant came across with a
copy of certificate issued by defendant No.2 certifying that
the appellant is suffering from mental disorder viz.,
'Delusional Disorder'. The primary symptoms of the disorder
are suspicious in nature of the patient. The said conclusion
was arrived by the doctor based upon the statement of the
wife of the plaintiff. On the statement made by defendant
No.3, the Hospital Authorities maintained the case history in
their hospital. Defendant No.2 issued certificates on
30.06.2005, 25.04.2006, 15.06.2006 and 24.07.2006
stating that the plaintiff is suffering from Delusional
Disorder. The said certificates were issued by the doctor on
the instructions of defendant No.3 who is the wife of the
plaintiff. Being felt aggrieved by such inaction from the
hospital, the plaintiff approached the Consumer Forum
seeking compensation, but the Consumer Forum rejected
the plea of the plaintiff. During pendency of the matter
before the Consumer Forum, defendant No.2 has lead
defence evidence and has deposed that he came to know
that the statement was made by defendant No.3. Due to the
act of the doctor employed by the defendant No.1, plaintiff
suffered severe jolt to his reputation in working place as
well as in the Society in general. By taking advantage of the
certificate issued by defendant No.2, the wife of the plaintiff
who is defendant No.3 made derogatory remarks among the
kith and kins and relatives. Hence, the plaintiff was put into
mental trauma and he was unable to move in the Society.
5. Appellant-party in person further alleged that he
has filed a divorce petition against the defendant No.3 in
M.C.No.1611/2006. The wife contested the matter and
Family Court passed the decree of divorce, but the
defendant No.3 not challenged the same which was attained
finality. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for the
damage caused to the plaintiff. Hence, he issued legal notice
for seeking damages. But they have given untenable reply.
Hence, he has approached the Court by filing the suit and
prayed for decree. Defendant No.3 placed ex-parte.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2-the Hospital as well as doctor
appeared through the counsel. Defendant No.1 filed written
statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and
also barred by the limitation. The plaintiff filed a complaint
before the District Consumer Forum alleging the negligence
on the part of the defendant-hospital which came to be
dismissed on 20.11.2006. The plaintiff also preferred an
appeal before the Consumer Redressal Commission which
also came to be dismissed. The defendant has taken
specific contention that the plaintiff came the psychiatric
illness on 17.06.2005 to the hospital and the plaintiff
complained abnormal behaviour for two to three years and
the problem was diagnosed as 'Delusional disorder'. The
plaintiff is known case of PPRP, his lower limb has been
affected and presently, he is walking with clippers. The
plaintiff himself voluntarily got admitted in the hospital and
got treatment for three days. Thereafter, he also came up
for follow up treatment on 04.07.2005, 18.07.2005 and
08.08.2005 and taken maximum treatment for 1½ months.
He has received injections, tablets which were prescribed
by the doctor and thereafter, he was dropped out of the
treatment and there was no negligence in diagnosing the
problem. During his stay in the hospital, he was
continuously monitored by the doctors while in the hospital,
best possible treatment was given to him for restoring his
health and he further contended that defendant No.1 has
further contended that their ignorance of the relationship
between the patient and defendant No.3, divorce case also
filed and decreeing the divorce case and denied that the
wife of the plaintiff circulated the false certificate issued by
defendant No.2 and denied all other awareness and prayed
for dismissal of the suit. Based upon the pleadings, the Trial
Court framed following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants caused damage or loss to the
reputation and image of the plaintiff with
malicious intention as alleged?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled for a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakhs by
way of damages from the defendants
No.1 and 2 jointly and severally as
sought for?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled for permanent injunction to
restrain the defendants from issuing false
certificates about the plaintiff as prayed?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled for mandatory injunction to direct
the defendants to tender on unconditional
apology as prayed?
5) What Order or Decree?"
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined
as PW.1 and marked 16 documents and on behalf of the
defendant, defendant No.2 examined as D.W.1 and got
marked Ex.D.1. After hearing the arguments of the
plaintiff-party in person, the Trial Court answered issue
Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and finally, dismissed the suit.
Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-appellant is
before this Court.
7. The appellant have filed written submissions
contending that he has filed suit for decreeing the suit
directing defendant to pay Rs.8 lakhs for damages and
permanent injunction from issuing any false certificates
about the appellant and also direct the respondents to
tender unconditional apology and further contended that the
respondent caused damage to the reputation and image of
the appellant with malicious intention and thereby, the
appellant proved that he is entitled for damage of Rs.8 lakhs
from defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also entitled for permanent
injunction. He has got marked 16 documents and nothing
has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.1.
Defendant No.2 examined as D.W.1, he has marked Ex.D.1.
The complaint filed before the Consumer Court was marked
in the cross examination. The evidence of DW.1 clearly
discloses that they have not produced any documents to
show that the appellant is suffering from delusional disorder.
Though he has stated in the evidence, the respondent No.1-
hospital examined the appellant but they have not examined
and their names have not been whispered in the court,
therefore the evidence of DW.1 is not trustworthy and not
believable. The medical records, case sheet maintained by
respondent No.1 not been produced to show that the
appellant is suffering from delusional disorder. The appellant
has proved his case by both documentary and oral. He has
further contended that the team of doctors have not been
examined in support of their case, no second opinion has
been taken before issuing medical certificates. The suit
cannot be dismissed even though there was proceeding
before the Consumer Court. Respondent No.2 left the job
long back, but respondent No.1 not brought to the notice of
the court. Respondent No.2 issued four to five false
certificates to third respondent, she is misusing it, therefore
prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the dismissal
of the suit.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the plaintiff failed to prove
the medical certificate issued was false. The petition filed by
him before the Consumer Forum is Ex.D.1 where the
plaintiff failed to obtain any relief either in the consumer
forum or in the appeal which was attained finality. There is
no negligence or no wrong treatment given by the hospital,
Ex.P5, the three certificates were not proved to be false and
there was no publication of the medical certificate in the
paper publication in order to show his reputation was
damaged. Ex.P.5 produced by himself which is not produced
by the respondent No.3 in any court of law or in the
newspaper. Absolutely there is no damage caused to the
reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove, how
he has suffered his reputation and loss. The said certificate
was not used by the respondent No.3 in the Court for the
plaintiff which is not a false certificate, therefore prayed for
dismissing the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, the point that arises from my consideration are:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that due to
issuance of the medical certificates by the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the defendant
No.3 which caused damage to his
reputation ?
(2) Whether the appellant also proves that the
said certificates were issued by the
defendant No.2 with an intention to
damage the image of the plaintiff and on
the say of the defendant No.3?
(3) Whether he is entitled for damages of
Rs.8.00 Lakhs by way of damages from
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and entitled for
injunction as sought for?
(3) Whether the judgment of the Trial Court
call for interference?"
10. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of
the records, the case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that he
was referred to the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital by their company
hospital on 17-06-2005 where he went along with his wife
who is defendant No.3 and he was taken to psychiatric
department and treated for three days as inpatient and
discharged and later came to know that his wife-defendant
No.3 shown the medical certificate issued by the defendant
No.2 stating that the appellant is having mental disorder of
devolution disorder and she has shown to the kith and kins
and relatives and thereby his reputation was damaged. He is
not suffering from any mental disorder, but a false
certificate has been issued by the defendant No.2 at the
instance of the defendant No.3 who is the wife of the
plaintiff. He has examined as PW.1 and got marked 16
documents. The plaintiff has deposed in his evidence in
respect of averments made by him in the complaint. Ex.P.1
is the letter issued by the employer of HMT regarding
seeking information through RTI. Ex.P.2 is a covering letter
of Public Information Officer. Ex.P.3 is the detailed
information given by the RTI Officer. Exs.P.1 and 2 are not
relevant as Ex.P.3 is the information issued by the HMT as
the said information is available in their HMT Hospital. As
per information No.3 at Ex.P.3, which reveals as per the
hospital records, the plaintiff has not approached the
hospital for any psychiatric/mental problem which reveals
he has not approached the HMT hospital for mental disorder
etc. However, information No.4 reveals, the HMT hospital
provides general/basic treatment for HMT employees and
their family dependents. All cases requiring specialized
treatment, they refer to major/panel hospital. Accordingly,
in this case, the appellant was referred to M.S. Ramaiah
Hospital. However, as per the information No.5 at Ex.P.3,
the HMT Hospital Authorities have not received any
feedback from M.S. Ramaiah Hospital regarding treatment
of the plaintiff which reveals after taking treatment in M.S.
Ramaiah Hospital, the plaintiff did not go back to the HMT
hospital for having taken treatment in M.S. Ramaiah
Hospital whatsoever and he was got admitted to the M.S.
Ramaiah Hospital for treatment and as per Ex.P.5 which are
three medical certificates where defendant No.2 issued the
said certificates stating that the plaintiff is suffering from
delusional disorder and there is no dispute that the
respondent No.2 issued the certificates stating that the
appellant-plaintiff is suffering from delusional disorder.
Ex.P.6 is the judgment in M.C. petition filed for obtaining
divorce in M.C.No.1611/2006 filed by him against the
respondent which was decreed. Even in the said MC
judgment, there is no reference that the respondent No.2
filed any M.C case against the appellant on the ground of his
mental disorder. Ex.P.8 is the school receipt of the child;
Ex.P.9 is the affidavit of D.W.1 given in consumer case
No.2140/2006 and based upon the said evidence of D.W.1,
his consumer dispute case was dismissed and appeal also
dismissed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
and there is no dispute in this regard. Ex.P.10 is the criminal
miscellaneous petition filed by respondent No.3 i.e., wife of
the appellant under the D.V. Act seeking maintenance.
Ex.P.11 document filed pertaining to the Tahsildar, North
Taluk Yelahanka which is not relevant to this case. Ex.P.12
is the residential school receipt. Ex.P.13 is the summons
issued by the Child Welfare Committee to the appellant for
taking care of the child belongs to the appellant. Ex.P.14-a
complaint made by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of
Police against his wife. Ex.P.15 is a courier receipts. Ex.P.16
is the letter addressed by the plaintiff to Public Information
Officer, HMT seeking information under the RTI Act which
was given by the HMT authorities as per Ex.P.3.
11. On perusal of the evidence, except Ex.P.3, all
other documents are not relevant and the case of the
plaintiff is that DW.2 issued the false certificate stating that
he is having mental disorder. In order to show the certificate
is false certificate, the plaintiff not examined any other
doctors or psychiatrists by taking any treatment or by
getting second opinion in order to show this document was
false document and when the plaintiff himself failed to prove
his case that he is not suffering from mental disorder and
dilution disorder and the certificate is false, then the
question of decreeing the suit does not arise. Even
otherwise, the respondent No.3 not produced the certificate
or published in any news paper or damaged the plaintiff's
reputation and even the plaintiff not summoned the case
sheet from the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital before the Court.
Therefore, once the plaintiff himself failed to prove, the
question of disproving the case of the plaintiff by the
defendant does not arise. Even otherwise, he himself filed
M.C. petition against the wife and obtained divorce on the
ground of cruelty but she has not filed any matrimonial case
against him on the ground that he is suffering from mental
disorder. Such being the case, the certificate was not
misused by defendant No.3 against him for any wrongful
gain or caused wrongful loss to him. The employer also not
removed him from service on the ground of mental disorder
and no other witnesses examined by the plaintiff to show
the reputation of the plaintiff has been tarnished by the
defendant as per the evidence of the defendant. As per the
treatment taken by him in the hospital, the certificate was
issued and from the said certificate, there is no loss or harm
caused to the plaintiff and there is no evidence to show that
the said certificate damaged the reputation in the Society.
These documents were not published and not a part of the
M.C. case or matrimonial case or D.V. Act case. Therefore,
the contention of the appellant-party in person and the
evidence of PW.1 not impeached by the defendant cross
examination is not arise. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also not
misused the certificate and tarnished any image of the
plaintiff.
12. Therefore, on careful reading of the evidence on
record, absolutely there is no case made out by the plaintiff
to show that his reputation was damaged or tarnished by
defendant Nos.1 to 3 by using Ex.P.5 and there is nothing
produced on record to show that Ex.P.5 was a false
document issued by defendant No.2. Though he has made
an allegation that defendant No.3-wife took him to the
psychiatry department etc. but on perusal of the written
statement, he has treated in the hospital for 3 days from
17-06-2005 till 20-06-2005. Thereafter, he went for the
follow up treatments on 04-07-2005, 18-07-2005 and 08-
05-2005 for one and half months. During that time, he has
not expressed any dissatisfaction. Thereafter, he left for
treatment. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has
taken treatment in some other psychiatric hospital or any
psychiatrist from any specialized hospital like NIMHANS to
show that he is not suffering from any mental disorder as
stated in Ex.P.5. Such being the case, the question of
believing the evidence of PW.1 does not arise and his
evidence is not sufficient for proving the case of the plaintiff.
Therefore, I answered the point Nos.1 and 2 against the
appellant- plaintiff. On perusal of the judgment of the Trial
Court, the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on
record in detail, passed the judgment by dismissing the suit.
There is nothing to interfere by this court in this appeal.
Therefore, I am of the view, the appeal is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-
party in person is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
CT:SK
