Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing V. Krishnakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu &Ors.; on 1 July, 2015

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

Maharaja Agrasen Hospital . vs Master Rishabh Sharma . on 16 December, 2019

11.4.17 It is well established that a hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by the doctors engaged or empanelled to provide medical care.33 It is common experience that when a patient goes to a hospital, he/she goes there on account of the reputation of the hospital, and with the hope that due and proper care will be taken by the hospital authorities. 34 If the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors, being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to justify the acts of commission or omission on behalf of their doctors. 35 33 Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56; Balram Prasad (2014) 1 SCC 384 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 327; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 634; V. Krishnakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 9 SCC 388 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 546 34 Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56 : (2004) 8 Scale 694 35 Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56 : (2004) 8 Scale 694 62 11.4.18 Accordingly, we hold Appellant No.1-Hospital to be vicariously liable for the acts of omission and commission committed by Appellant Nos. 2 to 4. We hold all the Appellants as being jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Complainants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 28 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. & Anr. vs Anita Jindal on 26 November, 2019

Keeping in view Rule 17 of PAPRA wherein 12% interest was laid down to be equitable; the submission that floating interest @ 11.65% p.a. was paid to HDFC Bank and also interest @ 15% p.a. was being charged by the Developer in case of delayed payments together with the fact that the Complainants had paid for these residential plots way back in the year 2009 and for building homes for themselves and their joint family, I do not find any substantial grounds to interfere with the well-considered order of the State Commission in awarding interest @ 12% p.a.  The Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Krishnakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 388, while quantifying the compensation has sagely relied on restitutio in integrum.  Indisputably, grant of compensation is based on the Principle of restitutio in integrum.  The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.  An application of this Principle is that the aggrieved person should get the sum of money, which would put him in the same position if he had not sustained the wrong.  It must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financial loss suffered due to the event, the pain and suffering undergone and the liability that he/she would have to incur due to the loss and harassment caused by the event.  The Complainants have not only lost the opportunity of owning a home almost a decade ago but have also suffered mental agony on account of the deficiency of service on behalf of the Developer. Hence, this interest awarded @ 12% p.a. is being retained as no further compensation is being awarded.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Gagandeep Tathgur vs Veerpal Kaur And Anr. on 27 January, 2021

55. The complainant has claimed compensation of ₹20,00,000/-, including litigation expenses of ₹20,000/-. The age of the complainant at the time of administration of injection was just 30 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "V. Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others" Civil Appeal No.8065 of 2009, decided on 01.07.2015 has taken the expectancy of human life to be of 70 years and further held in para No.23 as under:-
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manu Sharma And Another vs Dr. Kulwant Singh And Another on 16 April, 2021

89. Although, the loss suffered by the complainants due to deficiency in service and medical negligence of opposite parties No.2 Consumer Complaint No.886 of 2018 64 to 5 cannot be compensated in terms of money, yet in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred authority, age of the patient, and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we award lump sum compensation of ₹33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lac only) to the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, due to deficiency in service and medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.2 to 5 and resultant mental agony, harassment, avoidable pain, sufferings caused to the complainants and her family members, including medical expenses and loss of their beloved child. However, the apportionment of the compensation/liabilities of opposite parties No.2 to 5, as per the extent of their deficiency in service and medical negligence, will be detailed in the conclusion and relief part of this judgment.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamalpreet Grewal vs Chandigarh Heart Centre on 24 May, 2021

49. Although, the loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and medical negligence of O.P. No.1 cannot be compensated in terms of money, yet in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred authority, age of the patient, Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2019 41 and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we award lump sum compensation of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac only) to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, due to deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of O.P. No.1 and resultant mental agony, harassment, avoidable pain, sufferings caused to the complainant, including aforesaid medical expenses.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next