Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 464 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr on 8 March, 2010

Jeevan Anmol Hospital vs Nidhi Jain & Anr. on 26 November, 2024

In these circumstances, the judgment of V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another (supra) will be of no aid to the PAGE 13 OF 34 FA- 199/15 FA-139/15 DR.ANANT KUMAR SINHA V. NIDHI JAIN & ORS D.O.D.: 26.11.2024 FA-102/15 Respondent No.II and the application moved by Respondent No.II is dismissed in view of the above, the contention raised by the hospital of reference of the present complaint to a panel of doctors specialized in the field prior to the issuance of notices to the hospital/doctor is, thus, not tenable.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Anant Kumar Sinha vs Smt. Nidhi Jain & Anr. on 26 November, 2024

In these circumstances, the judgment of V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another (supra) will be of no aid to the PAGE 13 OF 34 FA- 199/15 FA-139/15 DR.ANANT KUMAR SINHA V. NIDHI JAIN & ORS D.O.D.: 26.11.2024 FA-102/15 Respondent No.II and the application moved by Respondent No.II is dismissed in view of the above, the contention raised by the hospital of reference of the present complaint to a panel of doctors specialized in the field prior to the issuance of notices to the hospital/doctor is, thus, not tenable.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Nidhi Jain vs Jeevan Anmol Hospital & Anr. on 26 November, 2024

In these circumstances, the judgment of V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another (supra) will be of no aid to the PAGE 13 OF 34 FA- 199/15 FA-139/15 DR.ANANT KUMAR SINHA V. NIDHI JAIN & ORS D.O.D.: 26.11.2024 FA-102/15 Respondent No.II and the application moved by Respondent No.II is dismissed in view of the above, the contention raised by the hospital of reference of the present complaint to a panel of doctors specialized in the field prior to the issuance of notices to the hospital/doctor is, thus, not tenable.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr Kunal Kiran Kondewar vs Balram Murlidhar Ratnaparkhi on 30 November, 2021

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another (2010)5 SCC 513 held in para 29 that, the directions in Martin F.D'Souza case are not consistent with the law laid down by the larger bench in Jacob Mathew's case(Supra). The learned advocate of the opponent has also relied upon the judgment in Kishan Rao's case. The learned advocate of opponent has also relied upon Ramesh Chandra Agrawal -Vs- Regency Hospital Ltd. & ors. , Civil Appeal No.5991 of 2002 case where it is held that expert is not witness of fact. His evidence is of advisory character, the credibility of the evidence depends on reason stated in support of his conclusion.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pushpa Rani vs Dr. Mohinder Singh, Hospital & Dialysis ... on 31 March, 2014

10. The aforesaid observations and conclusions leave no manner of doubt that the judgment rendered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Martin F.D'Souza (supra) has been correctly declared per-incuriam by the judgment in V. Kishan Rao (supra) as the law laid down in Martin F. D'Souza (supra) was contrary to the law laid down in Jacob Mathew (supra)."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhjot Kaur & Ors. vs Dayanand Medical College And Hospital & ... on 28 April, 2014

10. The aforesaid observations and conclusions leave no manner of doubt that the judgment rendered by a two-Judge First Appeal No. 1492 of 2010 Page 5 of 6 Bench of this Court in the case of Martin F.D'Souza (supra) has been correctly declared per-incuriam by the judgment in V. Kishan Rao (supra) as the law laid down in Martin F. D'Souza (supra) was contrary to the law laid down in Jacob Mathew (supra)."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi vs Maxivision Laser Center Pvt. Ltd. on 5 April, 2019

30.     Though the learned counsel for the Lasik Centre vehemently contended that the State Commission has erred in not relying on the opinion given by the Expert Committee, the fact remains that the Expert Committee did not address itself to the reason for the presence of microstriae or decentred ablation  and also did not give any conclusive finding regarding the corrective steps to be taken for eliminating the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 513 has held that  expert opinion is required only when a case is complicated enough warranting expert opinion, or facts of a case are such that Consumer Fora cannot resolve the issue without the assistance of an expert.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Page No.# 1/24 vs Kabir Dewan And Anr on 20 November, 2024

17. Mr. Deka further relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Superspeciality Hospital, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 513, submitted that the opinion of competent medical doctor is necessary in the Court before taking cognizance of any case as the expert can throw considerable light on the current state of knowledge in medical science at the time when the patient was treated. However, in the instant case, the learned Trial Court below had taken cognizance mechanically without going into the merit of the case and also failed to consider the fact as to whether prima facie any case is established against the present petitioner to take cognizance. More so, the learned Court below did not felt necessary to take any opinion of the medical expert before taking cognizance. The petitioner and the team of Doctors of the Apollo Hospital, who were in duty of I.C.U., had provided all required treatment to the patient as per the protocol and there was no negligence on the part of the doctor and they tried their best to save the life of Page No.# 9/24 the patient/deceased.
Gauhati High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next