High Court of Delhi

Harpati And Ors. vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

MANU/DE/4953/2023

02.08.2023

Civil

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

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 :