Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Medical Negligence

Sympathy cannot Translate into a Legal Remedy [SC JUDGMENT]

Medical Negligence - Sympathy cannot translate into a legal remedy. The approach adopted by the NCDRC cannot be said to be faulty, while dealing with the role of the State Commission, which granted damages on a premise that respondent No.2-Doctor could have pursued an alternative mode of treatment. Such a course of action, as a super-appellate medical authority, could not have been performed by the State Commission. There was no evidence to show any unexplained deviation from standard protocol. It is also relevant to note that the deceased was medically compromised by the reason of her past illnesses. The deceased was admitted to two other hospitals, post her discharge from respondent No.1-Hospital. The moot point was whether heradmittance and discharge from respondent No.1-Hospital was the sole, or even the most likely cause of her death. The death had been caused by a multiplicity of factors. In the end, we may also note that the medical certificate issued for the cause of death...

Medical Negligence : It is not Possible for every Professional to Possess Highest Level of Expertise [SC JUDGMENT]

Medical Negligence - the standard to be applied for judging whether the person charged has been negligent or not would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. 

Test for Determining Medical Negligence [ORDER]

Medical Negligence - In spite of repeated request for necessary treatment for curing the accumulation of fluid/water in the chest area, doctor mechanically opined that the problem was due to old age of the deceased patient and mechanically advised the deceased patient to drink milk - there was medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the doctor.

Degree of Proof Expected of a Doctor called upon to Answer a Charge of Medical Negligence [JUDGMENT]

Medical Negligence - Whether the respondent was medically negligent in discharging the child on 19.05.1989 without understanding as to what extent the child was recovered and what actually was the internal condition of her lungs.

Consumer Fora should not adopt Hyper Technical Approach while considering Amendment Application [Case Law]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -  Rule 14(1)(b) - Civil P.C. 1908 -  O. 1 R. 10(4) -  Merely because the, plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded.  

Supreme Court on Medical Negligence : 31 Important Case Laws

1. Ashoke Kumar Chaudhuri v. Kunal Saha [29/11/2016]  Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Complaint - Quashing Of; AIR 2017 SC 618 : 2016 SCR 227 : JT 2017 (1) SC 557 : 2017 (1) SCALE 544