Haseena vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025

Haseena & Ors. ….Appellant(s) Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

.... Respondent(s)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The claimants before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal1 were the wife, minor child and the mother of an

Excise Guard, who died, allegedly as a result of a motor

vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 29.04.2006 when

the motorcycle driven by the deceased collided with

another motorcycle, owned and driven by the fourth

respondent. The accident occurred at about 9 am and the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey injured victim was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. Date: 2025.09.04 18:00:53 IST Reason:

1

for short, ‘the Tribunal’

Page 1 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 The victim was treated as an inpatient from 29.04.2006 till

03.05.2006 and discharged. The injuries suffered by him

were compound fracture of second, third and fourth

metatarsals of right foot and a simple fracture of the

proximal phalanx of left little finger. He also sustained a

wound at the fracture site.

2. After getting discharged, the treatment continued as

an outpatient till 12.08.2006, subsequent to which he was

referred to a higher medical centre for plastic surgery

consultation. On 18.09.2006, the victim was admitted to the

higher medical centre with a non-healing ulcer on the right

foot. 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

on 18.09.2006, almost five months after the date of the

accident. The Tribunal found the death to be a direct

consequence of the accident which finding was overturned

by the High Court. The appeal is by the claimants against

the judgment of the High Court.

Page 2 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025

3. The factum of the accident and the death is

undisputed. The controversy arose insofar as the death

occurred after five months; whether the accident was a

direct causation of the death. The High Court has

elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1, the plastic

surgeon who carried out the surgical procedure and found

the death to be not a direct cause of the accident.

4. We first looked at the order of the Tribunal which was

specifically emphasised by Mr. Shaji P. Chaly, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. The Tribunal

found merit in the submissions of the claimants that the non-

healing ulcer on the right foot was consequent to the injuries

sustained by the victim in the motor accident. The Tribunal

also observed that the injuries sustained by the deceased

victim were not so serious and though the deceased had

undergone grafting of skin in the local hospital on two

occasions, the injuries did not heal which prompted the

reference to a higher centre for plastic surgery consultation;

the local hospital having found themselves unable to further

Page 3 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 manage the medical condition. The surgery was carried out

at the higher medical centre and the patient was shifted to

post operative ward at 12:50 pm on 21.09.2006 but at 04:45

pm he developed sudden breathlessness and restlessness.

Exhibit A-1, the certificate issued by the plastic surgeon,

who was examined as PW-1 clearly reported the cause of

death as pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction.

5. PW-1 affirmed Exhibit A-1 and the Tribunal found that

the proximity of the accident in which the injuries were

sustained, with the death, clearly showed the nexus

between the accident and the death. It was also found that

the cross-examination of PW-1 did not elicit any contra

indication and there was neither any heart complaint nor

hypertension or diabetics. It was hence the Tribunal found

the death to be a direct result of the injuries sustained in the

accident.

6. The High Court by the impugned judgment

elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 while

affirming Exhibit A-1 certificate, deposed that the surgery

Page 4 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 was conducted by reason of the non-healing ulcer and the

skin grafting was done on 21.09.2006 under spinal

anaesthesia. The patient was shifted to the ward at 12:50 pm

after which he becomes breathless and restless and

eventually succumbed at 04:45 pm on the same day. The

cause of death was stated to be as seen from Exhibit A-1.

7. In chief examination, he also stated that due to the

injuries sustained in the accident and continued treatment,

pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction can be

caused if the patient continues bed rest for long. In cross

examination, PW-1 deposed on the injuries caused by the

accident, as has been mentioned above, which by itself are

not serious in nature; even according to PW1. In cross

examination, PW-1 admitted with reference to Exhibit A-9

that the victim had a history of mild blood pressure and

diabetics. Though, no cardiology check-up was held before

surgery, and no heart complaint was detected, cholesterol

was found at a high level in the preoperative tests.

Hypertrophy with strain pattern as detected in the patient

Page 5 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 was deposed to be a symptom of cardiac complaint. It also

came out in the deposition of PW-1 that postmortem was not

conducted on the deceased since his family objected to it.

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.

8. Even according to PW-2, the wife of the deceased, the

victim had suffered three injuries on the right leg, a wound

and a fracture on the ring finger which was followed by skin

grafting at the local hospital and a surgical procedure by the

plastic surgeon attached to the higher medical centre and

then her husband succumbed to death. PW-2 asserted that

there was no advise of a postmortem examination and that

Page 6 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 her husband had no ailments, but, the non-healing ulcer

caused by the injuries in the accident. We cannot but

observe that the statement of PW-2 regarding the health

condition of her husband runs contrary to the expert opinion

given by the Doctor who was examined by the claimants

themselves as PW-1.

9. The High Court has elaborately considered the

arguments raised on behalf of the claimants regarding the

cause of acute myocardial infarction. The contention that

such a condition could occur due to a long bed rest, as

deposed by the Doctor PW-1 also was negatived on the

ground that there is no clear evidence as to such a bed rest

having been advised for the patient. Admittedly, the

inpatient treatment was only between 29.04.2006 and

03.05.2006 and after that the victim was stated to have

undergone outpatient treatment till 12.08.2006. Though, it

has been contended that on discharge he was advised bed

rest, there is no specific period of bed rest spoken of by the

witness or substantiated by documentary evidence.

Page 7 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 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.

10. The injuries suffered in the accident, as deposed by

PW-1, the Doctor and found by the Tribunal were not very

serious. 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.

11. 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

Page 8 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025 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. We cannot

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. We are

unable to interfere with the findings of the High Court.

12. The appeal stands dismissed.

13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

….………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

...……….………………………..J. (N.V. ANJARIA)

New Delhi;

September 04, 2025.

Page 9 of 9 Civil Appeal No. 6621 of 2025