Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: allergic reaction in Sant Parmanand Hospital And Ors vs Nagendra Pal Singh on 28 May, 2025Matching Fragments
xxx. That the impugned Order has been passed without keeping in mind the principles of Equity and Balance of Convenience which undoubtedly lies in favour of the Petitioners / Revisionists herein.
Xxxi. That the Impugned Order is ex-facie perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable, and not in the interest of justice and needs to be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF REVISIONISTS
13. It is argued on behalf of the ld. Counsel for revisionists that there is no evidence to suggest any negligent act on part of the revisionists. It is further argued that Moxifloxacin was used as per the standard protocols of CA No. 650/2023 Sant Parmanand Hospital and Ors.Vs. Nagendra Pal Singh Page No. 14 of 36 drug administration in ICU and the same has been evaluated by the DMC and MCI who have opined that no medical negligence was made out. It is further argued that there is no proximity between the alleged act of negligence and the occurrence of death. It is further argued that the said drug was administered from 14.10.2009 to 18.10.2009 while the patient had expired on 28.11.2009 at AIIMS i.e. after 41 days. It is further argued that Anaphylactic reaction i.e. allergic reaction is an instant reaction and the death was not due to allergic reaction. It is further argued that Moxifloxacin has no relation with the death of deceased which was due to septic shock and his serious illness. It is further argued that as per settled law, no criminal proceeding shall continue against a doctor where the State Medical Council and Medical Council of India has concluded after inquiry that there is no case of medical negligence. It is further argued that the complainant has not examined any medical expert with relevant expertise and according to Jacob Mathew case, private complaint cannot be entertained without evidence of a competent doctor supporting the charge of negligence. It is further argued that CW-5 has only made general statements without any specific observation about the case of the deceased patient. It is further argued that his opinion is generic and has no value. It is further argued that the complainant has played fraud upon the Court by CA No. 650/2023 Sant Parmanand Hospital and Ors.Vs. Nagendra Pal Singh Page No. 15 of 36 suppressing the orders of DMC and MCI and therefore, no relief can be granted to him. It is further argued that the impugned order is a non speaking order which is contrary to law and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.