NCLAT: Cannot Withhold Income Tax Refund Received by Bank During CIRP In CD's Account  ||  All. HC: With S. 111 of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime' It Appears Gangsters Act has become Redundant  ||  P&H HC: Cannot Allow Changes in Admission Form after Submission  ||  Bom. HC: Findings in Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Relied Upon While Adjudicating Civil Proceedings  ||  P&H HC Directs Jail Authorities to Decide Parole Applications within Four Months  ||  Allahabad HC: Merely Supporting Pakistan Will Not Prima Facie Attract Section 152 of BNS  ||  HP HC Upholds Wife’s Claim of Adverse Possession after Husband’s Death  ||  Patna HC: Maintenance may be Allowed in Disputed Marriages if Relationship Was Socially Accepted  ||  Karnataka HC: State to Respond in 3 Weeks regarding Mandatory Teaching of Kannada  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Unhappy in Marriage is No Proof of Abetment of Suicide    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved