Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Arun Kumar Manglik vs Chirayu Health And Medicare Private Ltd ... on 9 January, 2019

Krishan Lal Kumar vs Medical Council Of India & Ors on 31 August, 2023

21. Though we can wind up our discourse forthwith, since reference is invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to the decision in the case in Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirayu Health and Medical Private LPA 487/2019 Page 17 of 24 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.08.2023 17:58:47 Limited (supra), we feel it to be our duty to dwell upon it for more clarity on the matters in issue. It was a case where the spouse of the petitioner was diagnosed with dengue fever and was placed on regime of administering intravenous fluids. She had a prior medical history of high morbidity, which included ‗catheter ablation' and paroxysmal supra ventricular tachycardia‖ suggestive of cardiac complication and fell in the group of patient that required in-hospital management. In short, the Hospital authorities were found to be lacking in constantly monitoring the condition of the patient so much that the patient had been left unattended for long intervals, and since the hospital staff failed to monitor the blood pressure, she went into dengue shock syndrome and eventually died. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by the NCDRF that had set aside the decision of the MPSCRF11 and awarded compensation.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Sh. Zaithankima vs The State Of Mizoram Represented By The ... on 20 November, 2025

67. In India, medical negligence is said to have been established by an aggrieved plaintiff or complainant when it is shown that the doctor or medical 32 professional was in want of, or did not fulfil the standard of care required of her or him, as such professional, reasonably skilled with the science available at the relevant time. In other words, a doctor is not negligent if what he has done would be endorsed by a responsible body of medical opinion in the relevant speciality at the material time. This test is known as the Bolam test and has gained widespread acceptance and application in Indian jurisprudence. It finds resonance in several decisions. Recently, in Arun Kumar Mangalik v Chirayu Health and Medicare Ltd., this court outlined that though Bolam has been the bulwark principle in deciding medical (and professional negligence) cases, it must adapt and be in tune with the pronouncements relating to Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to health in general:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Nahta vs Partap Parsuti on 5 January, 2021

--Held, observation and inference of NCDRC that case might lack merit, for which there was delay, unwarranted--Orders of this nature detract from true purpose for which NCDRC has been established - NCDRC should have borne this in mind instead of rejecting complaint on a technicality - Such dismissals only add to burden of litigation and defeat purpose of ensuring justice in Consumer Fora--Though Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates a period for disposing of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection that complaints cannot be disposed of due to non- availability of resources and infrastructure--In this background, it is harsh to penalize a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur in judicial process - Consumer Fora should bear this in mind so that ends of justice are not defeated - Since complaint was dismissed on a mere technicality, issued no notice to respondent - Impugned order dt. 15.02.2019 set aside and Consumer Complaint No. 1432 of 2016 to file of NCDRC restored - Rejoinder and affidavit of evidence being ready, to be taken on record by NCDRC - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss. 12, 13 (3-A) and 21 ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr fl)kUrksa dh jks'kuh esa ek= 2 fnu ckn ifjokn is'k gksuk og Hkh esMhdy usxyhtsUlh tSls xaHkhj ekeyksa esa is'k gksuk rFkk 30 lky dh efgyk dh e`R;q gks tkuk e`rdk ds ifjokj dks vlkekU; >Vdk FkkA 41 fLFkfr esa ;g 2 fnu nsjh ekQh ;ksX; gS ekQ dh tkrh gSA bl izdkj Åij of.kZr iw.kZ foospu dks ns[ks rks ifjoknh o ifjoknh dh iRuh ftudh ?kVuk ls 4 lky iwoZ 'kknh gqbZ Fkh] ifjoknh dh iRuh vuqiek ukgVk xHkZorh ugha gks jgh Fkh foi{kh fpfdfRld dks fn[kk;k rks ysizksLdksih dh lykg nh x;h ijUrq blls igys tks tkWap gksuh pkfg, Fkh og tkWapas ugha djok;h x;h tks osfyM Cosent ysuh pkfg, Fkh og ugha yh x;h fuMy Mky nh x;h Vªksdkj Mky fn;k x;k bULVsVkbZu o bfy;d vkVZjh jsIpj gks x;h bULVsVkbZu dks 2 txg fjis;j dj fn;k x;k bfy;d vkVZjh ij /;ku gh ugha fn;k x;k CyhfMax gks x;h 5 ;wfuV [kwu p<+k ijUrq dksbZ QdZ ugha iM+k ysizksVkseh dh x;h ysizksVkseh dh dksbZ lgefr ugha yh x;h ysizksVkseh vksiu ltZjh gS blds iwjs lk/ku vLirky esa ugha Fks] ;gkWa rd dh vkbZlh;w Hkh ugha Fkk ejht dks ,MokUl lsUVj esa jsQj fd;k tkuk pkfg, tks ugha fd;k x;k] ckn esa jSQj fd;k x;k ijUrq ejht bruh T;knk CyhfMax ls mHkj ugha ldh rFkk vUrr% mldh nq[kn% e`R;q gks x;hA blls ;g rF; iw.kZr lkfcr gS fd Jherh vuqiek ukgVk dh e`R;q ?kksj fpfdRlh; ykijokgh ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZA fo)ku ftyk eap us tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS og iw.kZr% fpfdRlk foKku rFkk dkuwu ds foijhr gS tks vikLr ;ksX; gS] vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA vc iz'u mRiUu gksrk gS DokaVe dk ifjoknh us vius ifjokn esa 15]21]500@&: ¼iUnzg yk[k bDdhl gtkj ikWp lkS :i;s ½ dqy {kfr pkgh gS] foi{kh dk ;g dguk gS fd ifjoknh us nwljh 'kknh Hkh dj yh gS rFkk og ldq'ky jg jgk gS foi{kh dk ;g cpko vR;f/kd 'keZukd gS] e`rdk 30 o"kZ dh Fkh ;|fi ?kjsyq efgyk Fkh dEiuls'ku ds laca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 401 'C' ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK V/S CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd %& C. Consumer Protection
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A. Narayanan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 2020

In the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Manglik versus Chirayu Health and Medicare Private Limited and another reported in (2019) 7 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has traced the developments of law regarding medical negligence by referring to various Indian and foreign decisions and has held that a medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Ku. Samiksha vs Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital & ... on 20 September, 2019

26.     Now we address ourselves to the Revision Petition preferred by the Complainant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by both the fora below. We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that the Patient was only 6 years old, when she lost her kidney and had suffered physical  and mental agony from 2004 onwards with recurrent infections on account of the cotton gauze having left behind. It is an admitted fact that the Patient, 6 years old child had lost her kidney and the Hospital treatment record shows that the child was in and out of Hospitals having undergone several surgeries between the period 2004 till 2006. The Deposition of the Doctors shows that even in the  future, the child may be  subject to various complications including hernia  which  may arise out of the procedures which the child was subject to. Apart from this, the fact remains that the child has only one kidney and her definitely restricted her life style with respect to physical movements in many aspects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the aspect of compensation in Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , Malay Kumar Ganguly v Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) III SCC 663  and in Arun Kumar Manglik Vs. Chirayu Health And Medicare Private Limited & Anr., 2019 (3) SCALE 333,  has laid down that compensation should be awarded based on the principle of restitutio in integrum.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Andhra Mahila Sabha & Anr. vs K. Durdaiah Dinesh & Anr. on 26 November, 2019

21.     The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the aspect of compensation in Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197, Malay Kumar Ganguly v Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) III SCC 663  and in Arun Kumar Manglik Vs. Chirayu Health & Medicare Private Limited & Anr., 2019 (3) SCALE 333, has laid down that compensation should be awarded based on the principle of restitutio in integrum.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Ashok Jain S/O Sh. C.P. Jain vs Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Through ... on 8 January, 2020

blls Hkh ;gha izrhr gksrk gSa fd ejht ds vkWijs'ku ls iwoZ tks tkap djk;h x;h mlesa isV esa TENDERNESS ds vykok lHkh lkekU; Fks] ckn esa /khjs&2 vlkekU; gksrs x;sA ejht dh 'kq: esa gh Open Surgery dj nh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] tks ugha dh x;hA ejht dk bZykt ftl izdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,] bldk 50 Master Doctor gksrk gSa ijUrq bldk vFkZ ;g ugha fd Doctor unreasonable Decision ys] bl lac/a k esa (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 401 ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK V/S CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ds iSjk 45 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd %& In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches to treatment. There can be a genuine difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the medical professional must ensure that it is not unreasonable. The threshold to prove unreasonableness is set with due regard to the risks associated with medical treatment and the conditions under which medical professionals function. This is to avoid a situation where doctors resort to "defensive medicine" to avoid claims of negligence, often to the detriment of the patient. Hence, in a specific case where unreasonableness in professional conduct has been proven with regard to the circumstances of that case, a professional cannot escape liability for medical evidence merely by relying on a body of professional opinion.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next