Medical negligence and res ipsa loquitur upheld where unexplained surgical injury after anaesthesia led to compensation.

A medical negligence pleadings claim was held sufficiently particularised where the plaint set out the surgery, the sudden paralysis and loss of speech, and the allegation of negligent conduct, because Order 6 Rule 2 CPC requires material facts, not evidence. A photocopy marked as Ext. B1 was inadmissible, as no proper foundation for secondary evidence was laid under the Evidence Act. The patient's unexplained postoperative paralysis and speech loss after general anaesthesia attracted res ipsa loquitur, shifting the evidential burden to the defendants, who failed to produce original records or a plausible explanation. Negligence and entitlement to compensation were therefore sustained, and the damages award was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint contained sufficient material facts to plead negligence; (ii) Whether Ext. B1 was admissible in evidence; (iii) Whether negligence during surgery was established and the plaintiff was entitled to damages; (iv) Whether the damages awarded required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint contained sufficient material facts to plead negligence.

Analysis: Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires material facts, not evidence, to be pleaded. In a medical negligence case arising from events inside an operation theatre while the patient was under general anesthesia, the plaintiff can ordinarily plead the injury and the broad circumstances, while the detailed negligent acts may be beyond his knowledge. The plaint sufficiently stated the surgery, the sudden onset of paralysis and speech loss, and the allegation that these injuries were caused by negligent conduct.

Conclusion: The pleadings were sufficient and the objection that the plaintiff travelled beyond the pleadings was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Ext. B1 was admissible in evidence.

Analysis: Sections 61 to 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 require documentary evidence to be proved through primary evidence, unless a proper foundation for secondary evidence is laid. Ext. B1 was only a photocopy and no satisfactory foundation was laid to show loss, destruction, or other legally recognised grounds for producing secondary evidence. Mere marking of a document does not amount to proof of its contents, and a document that is inadmissible cannot be relied on for its contents.

Conclusion: Ext. B1 was inadmissible and the trial court's exclusion of it was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether negligence during surgery was established and the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Analysis: The plaintiff entered the hospital as a healthy person and emerged from surgery with paralysis and loss of speech. Such a complication was not a normal or contemplated outcome of the procedure. In these circumstances, the maxim res ipsa loquitur applied, shifting the evidential burden to the defendants to explain how the injury occurred without negligence. The defendants did not produce the original records, did not examine material witnesses from the operation theatre, and did not furnish a plausible explanation for the injury. The documentary and oral evidence supported the conclusion that the injury occurred during the surgery and that negligence was not disproved.

Conclusion: Negligence was established and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation.

Issue (iv): Whether the damages awarded required interference.

Analysis: The appellants did not seriously challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court. In the absence of any effective challenge to the assessment of damages, no basis existed for appellate interference.

Conclusion: The damages award required no interference.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed in full and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a patient under general anesthesia suffers an unexplained and extraordinary injury during surgery, res ipsa loquitur may shift the evidential burden to the defendant, and failure to adduce a plausible explanation or admissible supporting evidence will sustain a finding of medical negligence.

---