Court dismisses suit due to limitation, lack of negligence proof, and unsupported medical claims.

The court dismissed the suit as it was barred by limitation and for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to establish negligence by the defendants or a causal link between his ailments and the second radiation treatment. Claims for damages and medical expenses lacked supporting evidence. The plaintiff's request for reliefs was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation
2. Non-joinder of necessary parties
3. Vicarious liability of defendants
4. Cause of action against defendants
5. Negligence and loss/damage due to negligence
6. Information about cancer cure and preventive treatment
7. Illness due to second radiation
8. Premature conclusion of cancer recurrence
9. Radiation given without confirming recurrence
10. Multiple illnesses due to second radiation
11. Breach of duty and negligence by defendant No. 3
12. Injury due to second radiation
13. Link between injury/damage and negligence
14. Medical expenses due to negligence
15. Daily treatment expenses
16. Entitlement to recover damages
17. Mental and physical pain due to negligence
18. Urgent surgery abroad and its costs
19. Claim for damages
20. Reliefs as prayed

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Limitation
The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff's alleged injury occurred in December 1986, and he had knowledge of it. The limitation period of three years ended in December 1989. The suit filed in 1991 is beyond the prescribed period.

Issue No. 2: Non-joinder of Necessary Parties
The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to join all trustees of Bombay Hospital Trust and Tata Memorial Hospital, despite being informed of the trustees' names. This procedural lapse is significant.

Issue No. 3: Vicarious Liability
This issue was withdrawn by consent.

Issue No. 4: Cause of Action Against Defendants
The plaint does not disclose a cause of action against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. There is no connection shown between them and the alleged acts of negligence by defendant No. 3.

Issues Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12: Negligence and Loss/Damage Due to Negligence
The plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants. The evidence shows that the second course of radiation was necessary and administered according to accepted medical practice. The claim that the second dose of radiation was given without confirming recurrence is not substantiated. Expert witnesses supported the treatment given by Dr. Kulkarni.

Issues Nos. 7 and 10: Illness Due to Second Radiation
The plaintiff did not prove that his illnesses were due to the second radiation. The ailments occurred long after the radiation, and there was treatment from other doctors in between. No causal connection was established.

Issue No. 13: Link Between Injury/Damage and Negligence
This issue does not survive as Issue No. 12 was answered in the negative.

Issues Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19: Medical Expenses and Damages
The plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence to support his claims for medical expenses and damages. The claims appear inflated and unsupported by any substantial proof.

Issue No. 18: Urgent Surgery Abroad and Its Costs
The plaintiff's claim for urgent surgery abroad costing &8377; 10 lakhs is not substantiated. Expert witnesses stated that the required surgery could be performed in India.

Issue No. 19A: Reliefs as Prayed
The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The suit is dismissed.

Conclusion:
The suit is dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. The plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, and no causal connection was established between his ailments and the second radiation treatment. The claims for damages and medical expenses were unsupported by evidence.

---