Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 365 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 February, 1996

Dr. G S Chandraker vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2018

94. It   was   further   observed   in  Achutrao   Haribhau   Khaodwa   Vs.   State   of  Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 634 that Government Hospitals are vicariously  responsible  for  the   acts  of   its  doctors.     It  was   further   held   that   Government   is  vicariously responsible for the negligent acts of his employees including the one  involved in running of the Hospitals.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. M.K. Gourikutty And Etc. vs M.K. Raghavan And Ors. on 8 August, 2001

20. Regarding the question of sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 634 : (AIR 1996 SC 2377), held as follows : "Running a hospital is a welfare activity undertaken by the Government but it is not an exclusive function or activity of the Government so as to be classified as one which could be regarded as being in exercise of its sovereign power.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

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

In the case titled Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 2377 it is laid down that maintenance of Government hospital constitute a non- sovereign activity of the Government and State would be vicariously liable for damages which may become payable on account of negligence of his doctors or other employees. Once the negligence in the hospital is established then the State is liable to pay the damages.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Jyoti Kewat vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 8 July, 2002

In view of the law settled by this Court in N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of A.P., AIR 1994 SC 2663 : (1994) 6 SCC 205 : (1994 AIR SCW 3753), Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 : AIR 1999 SC 2979 : (1999 AIR SCW 2899) and Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Acc CJ 505 : (1996 AIR SCW 919 : AIR 1996 SC 2377). The last case, which related to the fallout of a sterilisation operation, deals, like the two previous cases, with the question of vicarious liability of the State on account of medical negligence of a doctor in a Govt. hospital. The theory of sovereign immunity was rejected."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - D Misra - Full Document

Sagolsem Naran Singh vs Director, Rims And 3 Others on 9 April, 2018

39. In the result, both the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are responsible for the medical negligence. It is a well settled law that hospital is vicariously liable for its Doctors. State would also be vicariously liable on account of negligence of its doctors and other employee. (reference - V. Krishnakumar's case (supra), Sabita Garg's case (supra), Balram Prasad's case (supra) and Achutrao Haribhau's case (supra) ). It is no longer res integra that doctors, hospital and nursing home and other connection establishment are to be dealt strictly if they are found to be negligent with the patient. The patients irrespective of their social, cultural and economic background are entitled to be treated with dignity which not only forms their fundamental rights but also their human rights. Therefore, the decision of the Commission/court would act as a deterrent and reminder to those doctors, hospitals, nursing homes other connected establishment who did not take their responsibility seriously .
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.K.Alamelu vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 7 October, 2009

34. A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. For instance, he would be liable if he leaves a surgical gauze inside the patient after an operation, vide Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra4 or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he would be also criminally liable if he operates on someone for removing an organ for illegitimate trade.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Gourikutty vs Raghavan on 8 August, 2001

20. Regarding the question of sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 634, held as follows: "Running a hospital is a welfare activity undertaken by the Government but it is not an exclusive function or activity of the Government so as to be classified as one which could be regarded as being in exercise of its sovereign power.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next