LAXMAN BALKRISHNA JOSHI versus TRIMBAK BAPU GODBOLE AND ANR.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 02-05-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f,AXMA'.'11 RALKRISHNA JOSHI 
A 
v. 
TRIMBAK RAPU GODROl,E AND ANR. 
May 2, 1968 
[R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
B 
Tort-l'l/egliRence of S11rgeon. 
A person v.·ho holds himself out ready to give medical advice and 
tn!"•tment 
impliedly holds forth that he is possessed of skill and know-
ledge. for t~c purpose. 
Such a person 'vhen consulted by a patient, owes 
ccna10 du11es. namely. a duty of care in deciding whether to undenake 
the case,. <1 duty of ~arc in deciding what treatment to give, and a duty 
C 
of care 111 the adm1n1stration of that treatment. 
A breach of any of 
these duties r.nve-; a right of action of ne,:?:ligence against him. 
The medi-
cal practitioner h;-is a discretion in choosing the treatment \\1hich he pro-
poses to give co the patient and such discretion is wider in cases of emer-
gency. hut, he must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and 
know}edgc and must exercise a reasonable dl"-grc.e of care ttccordin.e to 
the circumstances of each case. [213 C-E] 
· 
In the present case, on 61h May 1953. the son of the first respondent 
suffered a fracture of the femur of his left leg. 
First aid was given 
by a local physician though the leg was not fully or properly immobilis-
ed. and. on the 9th May he was taken to the appellant's hospital in 
Poona 200 mile~ av.·ay. in a taxi after a journey of ahout eleven hoors. 
'fhc appellant directed his assistant to give two injections of morphia 
but only one injection was given. 
The patient 
\Vas then ~iven some 
treatment in the opcratjon theatre and the first respondent \\.'ao:; assured 
at 5.JO p.m. that e.vcrything \\·as all right and that the patient \\'ouJd be 
out of the effects of morphia by 7 p.m. 
The first respondent thereuPQn 
left for Dhond \vhere he was practising as a 
m~dical practitioner. 
A 
little Jatci ho,vevcr. the patienfs condition deteriorated and ~t 9 p.m. he 
died. 
The appe11ant issued a certificate that the cause of death was fat 
embolism. 
1be first respondent filed a suit against the appellant for damages for 
negligence towards his patient. 
"fhe trial Court. and the High Court in 
appeal. held that the appellant had performed reduction of the fracture, 
that in doin~ so he applied with the help of three of his a~sistants cxces.sive 
force, that such reduction was done \Vithout giving nny anaesthetic hut 
while the patient was under the effect of the morphia in.iection. that the 
said treatment rec;ulted in the. embolism. or shock. v.'hich \\'as the pro'.":i· 
mate cause of death. that the appel1ant \\'as guilty of ne~ligenc.e and 
"'rongful acts. and awarded Rs. 3,000 as damages. 
In appeal to this Court. it was oontended that : (I) The High Court 
erred in placing reJiancc on niedical works instead of considering the 
evidence of the expert examined on behalf of the re<pondents; and (2) 
the findings though concurrent. should he reopened by this Court. as thev 
were arrived at on a misunderstanding of the evidence and on mere con-
jectures and surmises. 
HEJ,D : (I) There was nothing wrong in the High C.ourt cmphasis-
in~ the opinions of authors of v."CJ1-recogniscd medical works instead of 
b.l.~ng itc; conclusions on the expert's evidence as. it \\'as a alleged hy 
the appellant that the expert was a orofcssional rival of the appellant 
and \\'as, therefore, unsympathetic to\vards him. [216 E-F} 
D 
E 
F 
H 
-
' 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
L. B. JOSHI v. T. B. GODBOLE (She/at, J.) 
207 
(2) The trial court and the High Court were right in holding that the 
appelhmt was guilty of negligence and wrongful acts towards the patient 
and was liable. for damages, because. the first respondent's case that what 
the appellant did was reduction of the fracture: without giving anaesthetic, 
and not mere immobilisation with light traction as was the appellant's 
case, was more acceptable and consistent with the facts and circum-
stances of the case. [218 C-D] 
(a) The first respondent himself was a medical practitioner who was 
present throughout 
when treatment \Vas being given to his son 
and 
understood the treatment. [214 A] 
(b) If reduction of the fracture had been postponed and only immo-
bilisation had been done, the first respondent would not have left for 
Dhond. It was only because the reduction of fracture had been 
done 
and the first respondent was assured that the patient's 
condition was 
satisfactory and that he would come out Of the morphia effect in an hour 
or so, that the first respo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.