A Life Cut Short: Court Rejects Link Between Accident Injuries and Death.


04-September-2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Motor Accident >> Family Law  

In Haseena & Others v/s The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another dated 29.04.2006, an Excise Guard had a road accident when the motorcycle on which he was traveling collided with one owned and driven by the fourth respondent. He received a compound fracture of the right foot, a simple fracture of the little finger of the left hand, and associated wounds. The victim was hospitalized at once, as an inpatient until 03.05.2006, and subsequently underwent outpatient treatment until 12.08.2006. Since the injuries failed to heal, especially an open ulcer on his right foot, he was sent to a referral medical centre for further treatment. On 18.09.2006, while a patient undergoing a skin grafting procedure under spinal anesthesia, he suddenly developed breathlessness in the postoperative ward and died in the evening of the same day. Cause of death on record was pulmonary embolism/acute myocardial infarction.

The Tribunal, placing its reliance on the evidence of PW-1 (treating plastic surgeon) and the closeness of events, found that the death was due to the immediate result of the injuries caused in the accident. The Tribunal inferred that the non-healing ulcer developed out of the accident, which consequently resulted in surgery and the resultant fatal complication. Compensation was accordingly granted to the wife, child, and mother of the deceased.


 

 

But then the High Court, on a careful reading of PW-1's evidence, overturned this determination. The injuries per se were not serious, the deceased was a diabetic with mild hypertension and elevated cholesterol, and there was no uniform evidence of prolonged bed rest that would lead to pulmonary embolism. Furthermore, no postmortem was done to prove direct causation between the accident and the death. The High Court thus held that the death cannot be directly linked to the accident and dismissed the claim for compensation on this basis, although it did uphold compensation for the injuries alone.

On appeal once again, the Supreme Court had a detailed look at the depositions and evidence. It supported the High Court's conclusion that there was no causal link between the motor accident injuries and the subsequent myocardial infarction that resulted in death. The medical proof, in fact, coming from the claimants' own expert witness, did not prove even a balance of probabilities to attribute the death to the accident. The appeal filed by the members of the family was thus dismissed and the High Court judgment upheld.