HC rejects hospital’s plea to recover ₹1.30-cr from doctor for abruptly stopping work

A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Dr Neela Gokhale clarified that damages contemplated under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act could be awarded only for losses actually suffered and not for any remote or probable damage

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday rejected Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd’s plea for recovery of ₹1.30 crore from a specialist doctor who had resigned from the company’s Rajkot hospital with seven days’ notice instead of the stipulated three months, allegedly causing massive losses.

HC rejects hospital’s plea to recover ₹1.30-cr from doctor for abruptly stopping work

A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Dr Neela Gokhale clarified that damages contemplated under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act could be awarded only for losses actually suffered and not for any remote or probable damage.

“The loss must be a real loss or actual damage and not merely a probable or possible one,” the bench said.

According to the hospital’s plea, Dr Nishit Vyas was appointed Senior Consultant, Internal Medicines and Critical Care, at the Rajkot unit of Wockhardt Hospitals in August 2015, for a period of two years. But the doctor resigned on September 23, 2016, and stopped reporting for work from September 30, 2016.

The company soon approached the high court for recovery of ₹1.30 crore from Dr Vyas, which included alleged losses suffered due to short-termination of the notice period plus 18% interest per annum. After the high court transferred the suit to the city civil and sessions court, on March 16, 2026, the civil court rejected the hospital’s plea for lack of evidence regarding losses caused due to the abrupt stoppage of work by the doctor.

The dismissal prompted the company to approach the high court again, where its lawyer pointed out that due to the doctor’s breach of contract, the hospital was unable to provide a special consultant to patients. The loss incurred due to this was based on a reasonable estimate and no exact figure could be furnished, the lawyer said.

The judges, however, refused to accept the contentions and upheld the order passed by the city civil court. They said that the basic obligation of Wockhardt Hospitals was to establish that they actually had suffered losses.

“We do not find that there is any material on record, either in the evidence or in the plaint, demonstrating how such losses were incurred,” the division bench said and dismissed the plea.