Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Usha Jagannath Kedar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 September, 2021

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S.G. Mehare

                                           -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.5017 OF 2014

                         USHA JAGANNATH KEDAR
                                 VERSUS
                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Mr.V.M.Jaware, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ) DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 PER COURT :

1. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause 'B' and 'C' as under :-
"B. By issuing writ of mandamus, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fiften lacs only) to the petitioner, with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident.
C. The respondents may kindly be directed to initiate inquiry and to take appropriate legal actions against the defaulting doctors."

2. There is no pleading in the petition with specific prayers as to whether this Court should come to a conclusion that medical negligence was involved in the process of delivery (of a child) undergone by the petitioner.

3. We called upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner as to what does he desire in this petition from this Court and his contention was that this khs/Sept. 2021/5017 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2021 23:07:38 ::: -2- Court should conclude that 4 surgeries performed on the petitioner were uncalled for, the removal of the uterus was unnecessary and a puncture to her bladder during the child birth by cesarean Section, was an act of negligence. In support of these contentions, he submits that this Court may call for an expert opinion from a Doctor, notwithstanding that such an opinion will have no binding effect and at the most would have persuasive value. He concedes that he has not caused any research as to whether there is any specific remedy available to him to voice his grievance of medical negligence against respondent No.2/Government Medical College and Hostel at Ambajogai.

4. At the request of the learned Advocate, we grant time till 16/09/2021 to carry out research.

5. Stand over to 16/09/2021 in the 'Urgent Category'.

      ( S.G. MEHARE, J. )                      ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




khs/Sept. 2021/5017




 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2021 23:07:38 :::