The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by the claimants in a motor accident case where the victim died five months after the accident due to a heart attack. The Court held that the death could have been a result of the surgery, given the medical parameters of the patient, and not directly related to the accident. The appeal was filed by the wife, minor child, and mother of the deceased, an Excise Guard, who died after a motorcycle accident in 2006.
The accident occurred when the motorcycle driven by the deceased collided with another motorcycle, and the victim was advised to undergo surgery after which he died suddenly. The cause of death was determined to be pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction. The Tribunal initially found that the death was a direct consequence of the accident, but this decision was overturned by the High Court.
The Supreme Court Bench, consisting of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, observed that the plastic surgeon who performed the surgery admitted that the victim had a history of mild blood pressure and diabetes. The Bench also noted that the statement of the wife of the deceased regarding his health condition contradicted the expert opinion given by the doctor/surgeon.
The Court reasoned that the proximity of the accident and the death, or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring due to a long bed rest, was not sufficient to assume that the death was caused by the injuries sustained in the accident. The Bench held that there was no clear evidence to substantiate that the death was a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.
The Court also observed that the non-healing ulcer on the right foot, which did not respond to treatment at the local hospital, could have been caused by various factors, including the victim’s diabetic condition, which necessitated the skin grafting procedure. The procedure was carried out successfully, but the patient succumbed to death after the surgery.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the well-considered judgment of the High Court, which had rejected the claim for compensation for death but considered the claim for injuries sustained. The Court held that there was no direct nexus between the accident and the death, and the death could have been an after-effect of the surgery. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld.