POONAM VERMA versus ASHWIN PATEL & ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
POONAM VERMA 
A 
v. 
ASHWIN PATEL & ORS. 
MAY 10, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
B 
Tarts : 
Negligence-Doctor holding Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine and 
Surgery registered under Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 
C 
1959-Specific mandate under S. 20(12)(a) thereof that such registered prac-
titioner "shall practice Homoeopathy only''-Administration of Allopathic 
medicine-Death of patient-Held : doctor not qualified to practice Al-
lopathy-Hence, a quack-Having entered prohibited field of Al/apathy in 
contravention of statui01y provisions was liable to be prosecuted under S. 
15(3) of Indian Medical Council Ac' 1956-Was guilty of negligence per D 
se-In the circumstances of the case, doctor directed to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to 
widow of deceased'-Bombay Homoeopachic Pracritioncrs Act, 1959, Ss. 
20(12)(a), 28(iii), 14-A, 23, 2(8), (12) and (16)-IndianMedical CouncilAct, 
1956, S. 15(3)-Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965, Ss. 2(d), 
16(1)-Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S. 2(1)(o), (c), (d) & (g). 
E 
Words & Phrases : 
11Negligence
1
~ "negligence per se
11 and 
11quack"-
Meaning of 
Legal Maxims : 
"Sic Utere tuo ut alienwn non loedas"-Meaning and applicability of 
Respondent No. 1 after receiving a Diploma in Homoeopathic 
Medicine and Surgery, was registered as medical practitioner under Bom-
F 
bay Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959. According to him he initially 
joined a private allopathic nursing home as Chief Medical Officer till he G 
opened his own private clinic and took up private practice. The appellant's 
husband, who complained of fever, was examined by Respondent 1 and he 
kept him on allopathic drugs for viral fever which, according to him, was 
then prevalent in the locality and thereafter for typhoid fever which, 
according to him, was also prevalent there. He gave broad spectrum H 
671 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996! SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A antibiotics which antipyretics together with tablets as also intra-muscular 
injections of a sodium compound to relieve him of pain without ascertain-
ing the cause of the pain. When condition of the patient deteriorated, he 
was shifted to a private nursing home of Respondent 2 as an indoor patient 
on the advice of Respondent 1. The patient received treatment there till 
B 
evening when he was transferred to a hospital in an unconscious state 
where, after about four and a half hours of admission, he died. At the time 
of death, the deceased was aged 35 years and was drawing a salary of Rs. 
5700 out of which he maintained his family comprising of himself, his wife 
and two children besides supporting the aged parents. The appellant filed 
a petition before the National Con;umer Disputes Redressal Commission 
C for compensation and damages from Respondents 1 and 2 for their 
negligence and carelessness in treating her husband but the Commission 
dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the Commission's judgment the ap-
pellant preferred the present appeal in this Court which directed the 
Director of All India Institute of Medical Science "to appoint a Board of 
D doctors/specialists in medicine and related branches, to examine the 
material being sent along \Yith this order, regarding the correctness, 
adequacy and other relative aspects of the treatment rendered to the 
deceased". Accordingly a Board was constituted, which on examination of 
the records, could not give a positive opinion but observed that the 
deceased died before a positive diagnosis could be established. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Respondent 1, having practised Allopathy, without being 
qualified in that system, was guilty of Negligence per se and, therefore, the 
F 
appeal against him has to be allowed in consonance with the maxim Sic 
Utere tuo ut a/ienum non loedas (a person is held liable at law for the 
consequences of his negligence). Since the deceased had already suffered 
at the hands o!' Respondent No. 1 and his condition had already been 
damaged to an unascertainable extent before he \.l'as shifted to the clinic 
of Respondent No. 2 it is not proper to proceed against Respondent No. 2 
G s1iecially in view of the report of the Board consisting of the Professors of 
AllMS. [695-B-D] 
1.2. A combined reading of the Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners 
Act, 1959, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Maharashtra 
H Medical Council Act, 1965 indicates that a person who is registered under 
• 
P. VERMA v. A. PATEL 
673 
the Bombay Homoeop

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