Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Harpati And Ors. vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (02 Aug 2023)

When there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution

MANU/DE/4953/2023

Civil

The Petitioners before present Court have preferred the instant writ petition claiming compensation from the Respondents due to alleged mismanagement and criminal negligence on their part due to which the son of Petitioner No. 1 has unfortunately expired.

In the present case, the Petitioners have sought compensation from the Respondents for causing the death of Naveen due to their mismanagement and criminal negligence, which has resulted in a violation of their fundamental rights. The Respondent Hospital however has disputed the facts stated by the Petitioners in the present writ petition, including material details such as the date and time on which the patient was brought to the Respondent Hospital by the Petitioners, the treatment given by the doctors and the conduct of the staff and officials of Respondent No. 3. It is in dispute whether there has been any misconduct or criminal negligence on the part of the doctors while treating the patient which led to the death of the patient, or if the death has occurred despite best efforts made by the doctors. It is also not clear whether the death of the Petitioner has occurred due to a shortage of oxygen in Delhi during the peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic. These are all important questions of fact which are in dispute and need to be answered to decide the question of whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation.

It is well settled proposition of law that, when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Particularly in cases where tortious liability and negligence is involved, it has been held that the remedy under Article 226 may not be proper.

In the instant case, the relief of compensation sought by the petitioners is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated only on the basis of affidavits. It would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved, the resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought.The Petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to them under the law. Petition dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   NEGLIGENCE   ALTERNATE REMEDY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved