In this edition of the Court judgments review, we look at SC’s order ruling that the doctor and hospital are liable for medical negligence for conducting the surgery on the wrong foot of a patient, Bombay HC’s ruling that there is no specific exclusion for police personnel or brutal crimes in remission rules, Kerala HC’s order that giving occasional hand loans don’t qualify as money lending business, among others.
SC: Doctor and Hospital are liable for medical negligence for conducting the surgery on the wrong foot of a patient
In 2016, Ravi Rai, a 24-year-old Chartered Accountancy student, sustained a fracture in his right ankle after tripping on the stairs at his residence. His family rushed him to Fortis Hospital located in Shalimar Bhag. Following diagnostic tests, including X-rays and CT scans, the doctors confirmed the fracture and recommended surgery to insert four pins into his right ankle for support. However, after the surgery, Ravi discovered that the procedure had been conducted on his left leg instead of the injured right leg. Despite his repeated pleas post-surgery, the medical team took half an hour to respond, exacerbating his distress. Ravi later sought treatment for the correct injury at another hospital.
Ravi alleged gross medical negligence by the hospital and doctors and filed a case. He argued that all pre-surgical tests were conducted on his right leg, and consent was specifically given for surgery on the right leg. He contended that the confusion and failure to follow proper pre-surgery protocols resulted in an unnecessary operation on his left leg, causing him significant physical, mental, and financial suffering.
In June 2024, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled in favour of Ravi Rai, finding the hospital and doctors guilty of gross medical negligence. The Commission highlighted that pre-surgery protocols, including proper documentation of consent, were not followed for the left leg surgery. It awarded Ravi Rs. 1.10 crores in compensation including Rs. 90 lakhs to be paid by Fortis Hospital and Rs.10 lakhs each by the two doctors involved, including Dr. Rahul Kakran.
Recently, on 02 December 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC’s findings in Rahul Kakran vs. Ravi Rai, rejecting Dr. Rahul Kakran’s appeal. The bench, comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, observed that the NCDRC had not erred in its findings or conclusions. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the liability for medical negligence.
Bombay HC: No specific exclusion for police personnel or brutal crimes in remission rules
The petitioner in Pradipsingh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra was a police officer convicted of murdering his pregnant wife in 2001 by strangulation after she failed to meet his dowry demands. The Sessions Court sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A IPC. On appeal, the High Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment in 2003. In 2018, the petitioner sought remission under the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010, issued under Section 432 CrPC, which categorizes convicts for remission eligibility. The State denied his request, citing his profession as a police officer and the brutality of the crime.
According to the petitioner, he was qualified for remission under Category 2(b) of the resolution and claimed his position or the nature of the crime should not exclude him, as no such exception was provided in the rules. The State opposed remission, citing the nature of the duty of the petitioner and his brutal act.
The High Court Bench of Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi ruled in favour of the petitioner. The Court quashed the State’s 2018 decision, holding that the petitioner’s profession as a police officer and the brutality of the crime did not legally disqualify him from eligibility for remission under the 2010 resolution.
The Court noted the resolution provided no specific exclusion for police personnel or brutal crimes. It found that the petitioner’s crime fell under Category 2(b), capping imprisonment at 26 years, and ordered him to serve 22 years, including remission. The Court emphasized that the remission framework under Section 432 CrPC applied equally to all convicts and that the State’s refusal lacked legal basis. Consequently, the petitioner’s categorization and request for remission were granted.
Delhi HC: Custodial interrogation is important to ensure a thorough investigation, especially in cases involving electronic evidence
In the case, Saiful Khan vs. State and Another, a 15-year-old minor girl alleged harassment, blackmail, and sexual exploitation by the applicant, Saiful Khan, and co-accused Sameer. Sameer initially approached the victim in 2022, and after a few interactions, Saiful contacted her in 2024, threatening to make explicit photos of her viral unless she complied with his demands. Saiful coerced the victim into engaging in sexually explicit video calls, recording the acts without her consent, and using the recordings to blackmail her. The victim was also forced into similar acts by Sameer, who recorded and shared the material with Saiful.
The applicant denied the allegations, claiming the victim falsely implicated him. His defence argued that their interactions were limited to online communication and no physical meeting occurred. He also highlighted his voluntary return from Riyadh after learning about the FIR, suggesting cooperation with the investigation. Meanwhile, the prosecution opposed granting pre-arrest bail, citing the severity of the charges and the need for custodial interrogation to retrieve electronic evidence and prevent the obstruction of the investigation. The prosecution also expressed concerns over the applicant’s potential to intimidate the victim or influence witnesses.
Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the applicant’s pre-arrest bail application observing the serious nature of the allegations under the POCSO Act, including the exploitation and sexual abuse of a minor. He also emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation, especially in cases involving electronic evidence. He added that granting pre-arrest bail would hinder the investigation and set a harmful precedent. The Court acknowledged the gravity of the crime and found sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant. The Court further clarified that the observations made were specific to the bail application and would not affect the trial.
Kerala HC: Occasional hand loans don’t qualify as money lending business
In Manoj George vs. State of Kerala, the petitioners were accused of lending Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainants, obtaining blank cheques as security, and demanding repayment with interest. The complainants alleged threats from the petitioners for repayment, leading to charges under the Indian Penal Code and relevant state laws governing money lending. However, the petitioners contended that they were not engaged in a money-lending business and had extended the loans as an act of assistance during an emergency.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners were running a money-lending business or offering loans at exorbitant interest rates. The Court emphasized that for an activity to be considered money lending, the prosecution must demonstrate a pattern of repeated lending transactions at high interest rates. Simply giving hand loans does not meet this threshold.
The Court also highlighted that penal consequences for occasional loans could create societal imbalance by discouraging individuals from extending financial help. It clarified that unless records show a large number of loans advanced at exorbitant interest rates, no offences under the relevant laws would apply.
Based on the lack of evidence, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, reiterating that allegations of moneylending without a license require substantive proof beyond isolated incidents.
SC: Liability for customs duty lies solely with the importer
A Porsche Carrera car was imported in 2002 by one Jalaludheen Kunhi Thayil. The vehicle was sold twice before the appellant in Nalin Choksey vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kochi purchased it in 2004. In 2007, customs authorities issued a Show-Cause Notice, alleging misdeclaration of the car’s model and tampering with its chassis number to evade customs duty, demanding Rs.17.92 lakhs as differential duty. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation, and allowed redemption of the vehicle upon payment of duty and fines.
The appellant contested the decision before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which ruled in his favour, recognizing him as a bona fide purchaser uninvolved in the import or misdeclaration. However, the Kerala High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, holding the appellant liable for the customs duty under Section 125 of the Customs Act.
Before the Apex Court, the appellant contended that he was a bona fide purchaser with no involvement in the importation or misdeclaration of the vehicle. He argued that liability for customs duty lies with the importer, not subsequent purchasers, and highlighted that he was not the legal owner under the Motor Vehicles Act as the car’s registration remained in the importer’s name. However, the Department argued that the car was in the appellant’s possession at the time of seizure, making him liable to pay the customs duty under Section 125 of the Customs Act.
The Supreme Court bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh examined the definitions of “importer” under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act and “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It held that the appellant, being neither the importer nor the legal owner, could not be held liable for customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Further, the car’s registration had not been transferred to his name. On these grounds, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, holding that the Show-Cause Notice and subsequent seizure were unlawful. The Tribunal’s order was restored, exonerating the appellant of all liabilities. The Court clarified that the Customs Department could proceed against the original importer for recovery of the duty.
