Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 739 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009

Flora Madiazagane vs G.G.Hospital on 22 February, 2021

12.3.4. The complainants have discharged the initial burden of proof [Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 688; Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56] by making out a case of clear negligence on the part of Appellant 1 Hospital and the Paediatric doctors under whose care the baby was admitted, as also Appellant 4 Dr S.N. Jha, the Senior Ophthalmologist attached to Appellant 1 Hospital. Appellant 1 Hospital and Appellants 2-4 doctors have failed to satisfy the Court that ROP tests were conducted at any point of time, or that the complainants were even advised to get the ROP test done.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - G Chandrasekharan - Full Document

Kavita vs Deepak And Ors on 22 August, 2012

Relying on the decision in Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (supra) and assuming the claimant’s life expectancy to be 55 years, we deem it appropriate to award attendant charges at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and physiotherapy expenses at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. With regard to the head of physical and mental pains the amount is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- and another Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of loss of amenities and loss of life expectancy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 296 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Ritu Minor Thr. Her Father & Ors. vs Regional Manager Uttranchal State Road ... on 7 December, 2012

We distinguish the judgment in Nizam's case [supra] from the present matter before us, based on the fact that this is a case of disability caused by motor accident and not medical negligence. The circumstances of a case of medical negligence where a doctor did not do things which he ought to have done or did things he ought not to have done and the circumstances of a road accident are very different. It must be remembered that the legislature has enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with the object of recognizing the principles of fault and no - fault liability with respect to motor accidents and bringing uniformity in compensation awards for such cases. However, it is not so with medical negligence cases, where liability and compensation has always been determined by the Courts themselves, having regard to the peculiar facts of each case.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 23 - J R Midha - Full Document

Smt Saroj Sharma vs Government Of National Capital ... on 28 May, 2019

In the citation titled Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors. III (2010) SLT 734 has laid down at para no. 13, 15, 25, 27 and 33 that complete investigation prior to operation not carried out which needed intervention of Neuro-Surgeon before operation attending doctors not associated Neuro-Surgeon at pre-operated and at the stage of operation. It is laid down that Neuro-Surgeon must have been associated with the diagnosis and the actual operation. In the present case the Neuro-Surgeon and the admitting doctor has not associated himself in the entire operation of Myelogram test which is mainly diagnostic in nature and requirement of Myelogram test is doubtful in view of medical test discussed in the present judgment. In the said case the patient has died due lack of proper care of which burden lies to the hospital to justify no negligence on their part of the treating doctor or the hospital who is in better position to disclose that what care was taken and what medicine was administer to the patient. It is duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was not lack of care or diligence.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Kunal Saha vs Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee on 21 October, 2011

In this connection reference has been made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhanaka& Ors. [ 2009 (6) SCC 1], where the Supreme Court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. One crore plus interest in case of medical negligence but finding no contention of the hospital that multiplier method should be used to determination of compensation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs Kewal Krishan Kapil & Ors. on 30 December, 2009

23. In the present case medical negligence on the part of respondent No.1 had been clearly proved on record by cogent and convincing evidence by the appellant which is ignored by the District Forum below while dismissing the complaint. Even report of District Ayurvedic Officer, Hamirpur had not been placed on record. In a case involving medical negligence, initial burden as per above discussion is discharged by the appellant by making out a case of medical negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctors concerned, the onus then shifts on to the hospital or to the doctors to satisfy the court that there was no lack of care or diligence. This is settled by the Apex Court in case of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka and others (supra), which is lacking in the present case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Devender Kumar Pandey vs Columbia Asia Hospital on 11 August, 2017

25.              Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 argued that sometimes at the time of treatment of the patient, the patients have to face un-expected results. Learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case law Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2005) 3 CLT 358 (SC), Kusum Sharma & others vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others, 2010(1) CPJ 29 (SC); Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka and others, 2009(3) CLT 430 (SC).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha ... vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. on 17 August, 2017

We distinguish the judgment in Nizam's case [supra] from the present matter before us, based on the fact that this is a case of disability caused by motor accident and not medical negligence. The circumstances of a case of medical negligence where a doctor did not do things which he ought to have done or did things he ought not to have done and the circumstances of a road accident are very different. It must be remembered that the legislature has enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with the object of recognizing the principles of fault and no - fault liability with respect to motor accidents and bringing uniformity in compensation awards for such cases. However, it is not so with medical negligence cases, where liability and compensation has always been determined by the Courts themselves, having regard to MAC.APP.602/2015 Page 15 of 28 the peculiar facts of each case.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next