Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 133 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana & Ors vs Smt. Santra on 24 April, 2000

Lok Nayak Hospital vs Prema on 6 August, 2018

there is no evidence that the doctor concerned was negligent in performing her duty or that she flipped, failed or fluttered as, for example, in the case of State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra referred to above, where the operation was not complete in that though the right fellopian tube was operated upon, the left was left untouched. There is no such allegation in the case before us. Moreover, in the said case before the Supreme Court, the doctor appearing as a witness had admitted the negligence in performing the surgery. Mere conception and delivery post-sterilization operation is no indication of negligence, more so, in the teeth of the evidence, that risk of such conceptions and deliveries still remains. What is more, the statement of Dr. S.B. Mahanty does not show that she had not exercised reasonable degree of care. The appellant has thus failed to prove negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned. And, in RFA 56/2006 Page 9 of 18 view of the evidence noticed above, it is surely not a case of res ipsa liquitur. This is not all. The appellant is asking for damages and yet she was herself negligent enough. She, as already noticed, did not rush to the hospital on missing the menstrual cycle though she ought to have. Some remedial measures could still be taken. By her negligence, or call it failure, the opportunity to take such measures was lost.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Harwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 2026

6. It must be kept in mind that a doctor cannot replace God, and every medical procedure has its own limitations in terms of its success. All medical procedures undertaken by doctor, in all eventualities, can or has never succeeded to the extent of 100%. Despite taking all due diligence and care, an operation can still fail, as several factors are involved in the success of operation. Some of these factors include post-operative diet, post- operative care of the patients, body structure and natural response of each individual, which varies from person to person. Therefore, despite all due care an operation can still fail. However, if there is a negligence on the part I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.02.06 17:42 RSA-3285-2003 -4- of doctor then in that case, doctor/his employer would be liable to compensate the person who had suffered damages.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Madhubala vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 8 April, 2005

there is no evidence that the doctor concerned was negligent in performing her duty or that she flipped, failed or fluttered as, for example, in the case of State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra referred to above, where the operation was not complete in that though the right fellopian tube was operated upon, the left was left untouched. There is no such allegation in the case before us. Moreover, in the said case before the Supreme Court, the doctor appearing as a witness had admitted the negligence in performing the surgery. Mere conception and delivery post-sterilization operation is no indication of negligence, more so, in the teeth of the evidence, that risk of such conceptions and deliveries still remains. What is more, the statement of Dr. S.B. Mahanty does not show that she had not exercised reasonable degree of care. The appellant has thus failed to prove negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned. And, in view of the evidence noticed above, it is surely not a case of res ipsa liquitur. This is not all. The appellant is asking for damages and yet she was herself negligent enough. She, as already noticed, did not rush to the hospital on missing the mensural cycle though she ought to have. Some remedial measures could still be taken. By her negligence, or call it failure, the opportunity to take such measures was lost.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - R Sharma - Full Document

Shanti Devi vs Dr.T.C.Saha on 8 September, 2008

10. The Counsel for the complainant-appellant emphatically relied upon a decision of the apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Smt. Santra (AIR 2000 S.C. 1888). The said decision arose out of the Civil Suit filed by the victim, wherein both oral and documentary evidences have been laid. The court on consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that there has been a gross negligence on the part of the attending physician and accordingly decreed the suit. In the case in hand, as stated above, there is no such evidence on record except the allegation as aforesaid and as such, in our view, the said decision in no way helps the complainant-appellant. Ratio of the said decision is also not applicable in the present case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Anita vs Principal Secretary on 3 November, 2012

20. As above mentioned there is no evidence that the doctor concerned was negligence, hence the judgment titled as State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Santra (supra) is not applicable because in that case operation was not complete as only the right fallopian tube was operated and the left tube was left untouched. There is no such allegation in the present case. Moreover in that case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, doctor appearing as a witness had admitted the negligence in performing the surgery. The plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of hospital or doctor concerned and in view of this it is surely not a case of res ipsa loquitur.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next