Brief Facts Of This Case:
In this case Manpreet Singh Makol who is alleged to have been victim of medical
blunder committed by Dr. J.S. Makhani, Senior Orthopaedic Consultant, Sir Ganga
Ram Hospital. Manpreet Singh was a patient of Osteosercoma upper end tibia. The
malignant tumour was suspected at the very initial stage and radio therapy and
open biopsy was advised by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh.
The complainant on the advice of M.P. Singh of General Hospital, Chandigarh,
consulted Dr. Makhani, and Dr. Makhani advice complainant to admitted his son in
the Ganga Ram Hospital. Bone drafting was done and patient discharged with
'awaited' biopsy report.
The complaints also questioned to doctors about doing of bone grafting without
biopsy report but doctors of Ganga Ram Hospital said that there was such no
disease, i.e., 'osteoblastoma' as diagnosed by the Doctors of PGI, Chandigarh.
According to complainant amputation was done and his son succumbed. In the
process of proceeding of the court Dr. J.S. Makhani died. Complainant want
compensation of 50 crores but complainant did not give the detail how this
Name Of Parties: Balbir Sing Makol vs. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Suhas C. Sen, J. (President), C.L. Chaudhry and J.K. Mehra,
JJ. (Members), Rajyalakshmi Rao, B.K. Taimni, Members
Citations: MANU/CF/0005/2000 2001(1)C.P.C.429, 2001 (1) CPR 45
Issue Of The Case:
Argument Of The Parties:
- Whether there is any medical negligence by Dr. J.S. Makhani, Senior
Orthopaedic Consultant, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital?
The counsel for complainant has submitted that the bone
drafting done by Dr. J.S. Makhani to the patient of osteosarcoma was a criminal
act. He alleges that the doctor deliberately, knowingly and intentionally gave
wrong treatment to make money from complainant.
According to him if his son had proper treatment, then the life of his would be
saved. He also alleges that simple leg amputation could have saved his life and
due to unwanted bone drafting and delayed amputation caused the life of his son.
In the view of the above complainant has claimed the following relief:
- Compensation/damages of Rs.50 crore.
- To award the cost of complainant; and
- Any other order, which this commission deems fit as per the
circumstances and facts of this case.
In response to the contention made by complainants, the
council of defendant has made the following arguments; According to the opposite
party no.2, it was said that Manpreet Singh Makol was a victim of unmatched
medical blunder. By the report of PGI, Chandigarh it cannot be treated as
confirmation that patient was suffering from Osteo Sarcoma of the upper end of
the tibia. the opposite party no.2 (Dr. J.S. Makhani) state that in this case,
it was very important to first perform biopsy any remedial measures- surgical or
medical that any medical practitioner could commence treating the afflicted
patient. According to opposite party no.2 bone draft was perform due to some
While denying the allegation that earlier bone graft was wasteful and mindless,
it was stated by party no.2 that surgical procedure was essentially for
diagnosing the nature of tumour but after opening of the knee it was
necessitated to do minor bone craft to pack the cavity. According to party no.3,
he is only a junior doctor who was only involved in giving the assistance to the
senior consultant and obeying and implementing the instruction given by the
senior consultant, according to him he barely saw patient for 2 hours before the
According to the party no.4, he was employed as medical officer at the general
hospital, Chandigarh, and he only suggested in the interest of the patient for a
second opinion and that impleading him is unwise, improper and complaint should
In the judgement of this case, Dr. Makhani who performed operation in the at sir
ganga ram hospital was the doctor in charge. Before the case reach in final
decision the said doctor, i.e., Dr. Makhani, died. Thus, the allegation could
neither be rebuttal nor could he have opportunity to defend himself.
In cases of tort of medical negligence, the cause of personal against person who
has been negligent in discharging his duties and that cause of action does not
survive against his state or legal representative. However, in this case,
judgement has been passed against the said deceased, the payable amount could be
recovered from the estate of deceased or legal representatives of deceased could
be brought on record.
But that did not happen in this case, in this case maxim action personalis
mortius cum person rule applicable, therefore, the cause of action against the
party against whom an action in tort is brought is extinguished on his death.
This maxim means that right of action of person dies with the person in other
words right of action destroyed with death of person.
Let's come to the role of other doctor we find that opposite party no.3 was only
a junior doctor who called to assist the Dr. Makhani and he had no authority to
work independently. Since the case has failed against Dr. Makhani, it cannot be
proceeded further against party no.3 or even respondent no.1 which is hospital
where operation was done because there is no allegation of negligence and lack
of service provided by the hospital authority.
The respondent no.4 in this case only recommended that a second opinion be
obtained from before proceeding and further with the treatment at Chandigarh. In
this case no relief is accorded to the complainant on account of death of senior
doctor. The complaint cannot be proceeded with any further and therefore,
dismissed with no order as to cost.
In this case I am not agree with judgment because of 2 reasons:
- In this judgement I find lack of clarity on medical negligence because
when it acknowledges the complexity of the medical situation, it does not
delve deep into the standard of care expected from senior orthopaedic
consultant. Moe detail examination of whether Dr. Makhani actions aligned
with accepted medical practise would have been beneficial.
- The judgement seems heavily on the legal principle "action personalise
mortius cum persona'' essentially dismissing the complainant due to the
death of Dr. Makhani. While this principle is relevant, it may have been
more just to explore other avenues for addressing the family's grievance or
compensating them for their loss.
- It does not address the responsibility of doctor in complex medical
cases and how they should handle procedure like bone drafting before a