No Direct Nexus: Supreme Court Dismisses Motor Accident Claimants’ Appeal Where Victim Died Due To Heart Attack 5 Months After Accident
The appeals before the Supreme Court were filed by the claimants who were the wife, minor child and the mother of an Excise Guard who died allegedly as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice NV Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the claimants in a case of motor accident where the victim died due to a heart attack 5 months after the accident. The Apex Court held that the death could have been the after effect of the surgery, given the medical parameters of the patient and it could not have any direct nexus to the accident.
The appeals before the Apex Court were filed by the claimants who were the wife, minor child and the mother of an Excise Guard. The Guard died allegedly as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria stated, “Admittedly, there was a non-healing ulcer on the right foot which did not respond to the treatment at the local hospital which prompted the reference to a higher medical centre. It was at the higher medical centre that the death occurred after a successful skin grafting procedure. The death could very well have been the after effect of the surgery, given the medical parameters of the patient. It cannot have any direct nexus to the accident which was not conclusively established; the expert medical opinion being otherwise.”
Senior Advocate S.P.Chaly represented the Appellant while AOR T. Mahipal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The accident occurred in the year 2006 when the motorcycle driven by the deceased collided with another motorcycle, owned and driven by the fourth respondent. The victim was advised to undergo a surgery after which he abruptly died. The cause of death was pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction. The death occurred almost five months after the date of the accident. The Tribunal found the death to be a direct consequence of the accident which was overturned by the High Court. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case and depositions of the witnesses, the Bench found that the plastic surgeon, in cross-examination, admitted that the victim had a history of mild blood pressure and diabetes. “PW1 also deposed that if postmortem had been done, the cause of death could have been ascertained. It was also clarified that in a patient, with the test results of the nature seen from Exhibit A-9, chances of a heart attack will be more. The mere response to the suggestions made, as to the injuries in the accident could have also resulted in myocardial infarction, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of the death having been caused by reason of the injuries suffered in the accident.”, the Bench held.
It was also noticed that the statement of the wife of the deceased regarding the health condition of her husband ran contrary to the expert opinion given by the Doctor/Surgeon who was examined by the claimants. The Bench also noted that there was a non-healing ulcer on the right foot, which did not respond to the treatment at the local hospital, and this prompted the reference to a higher medical centre. It was at the higher medical centre that the death occurred after a successful skin grafting procedure
Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring for reason of a long bed rest, it cannot be assumed, without clear evidence to substantiate the death having been caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident that the death occurred by reason of the accident. There cannot be found even a preponderance of probability, going by the Doctor’s evidence”, the Bench mentioned.
“The non-healing ulcer could have been for various causes, especially when the victim was known to be a diabetic, which necessitated the skin grafting procedure. The procedure also was carried out successfully but in the aftermath of the surgery, the patient succumbed to death”, it added.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench refused to interfere with the well-considered judgment of the High Court, which, though rejected the claim for compensation for death, considered the claim for injuries sustained.
Cause Title: Haseena v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1075)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate S.P.Chaly, Advocates Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Yaduinder Lal, Rajni Ohri Lal, AOR Himinder Lal
Respondent: AOR T. Mahipal, Advocate Rohit Kumar Sinha