https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311143 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. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Dec 2023 20:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311143 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311143