Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Parag Girish Chandra Desai & 2 Ors. on 14 May, 2019 cites

Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005

8.       It is pertinent to note that the treating Doctor did not prefer any Appeal. It is only the Insurance Company, which preferred Appeal No. 425 of 2012, on the ground that the State Commission has erred that there was any negligence on behalf of the treating Doctor. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the State Commission did not call for any medical expert opinion; that there was no medical literature filed to establish that the treating Doctor was negligent; that the State Commission ought to have dismissed the Complaint for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, Dr. Dhiren Sheth and Jivram Mehta Hospital; that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1, that the Doctor cannot be held guilty of negligence if he had acted in normal medical parlance, was not considered by the State Commission; that the Patient was operated upon and expired at Jivram Mehta Hospital on 18.08.2000, four days after the discharge from the treating Doctor; that the Patient was treated for Septicaemia and that on 15.08.2000, when the Patient was at the Hospital of the treating Doctor  there was no sign of Septicaemia and that the Blood Pressure of the Patient was normal and therefore  no negligence can be attributed to the treating Doctor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Smt. Savita Garg vs The Director, National Heart Institute on 12 October, 2004

11.     We find it a fit case to place reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56, in which it has been observed that the onus shifts on the treating Doctor and the Hospital to explain as  to the exact treatment rendered. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had approached the treating Doctor at 11 a.m. on 08.08.2000; that she was being examined by the treating Doctor right through and was advised admission only on 14.08.2000. It is not in dispute that the Patient has continuous fever and was complaining of abdominal pain. The treating Doctor deposed that when he had examined the Patient she had no abdominal distention; that pancytopenia fever cannot be diagnosed immediately as it could be because of infection. It is significant to mention that the Doctor has admitted in his deposition that no culture report was carried out since the date the patient started treatment under him. Despite the Patient repeatedly going to the treating Doctor and several investigative tests were undertaken, no proper diagnosis was given by the treating Doctor, when the fever has not subsisted  completely and the Patient was continuously  complaining of abdominal pain, not even taking a culture report to review infection is per se negligence. He submitted that a nurse was monitoring the Patient. The treating Doctor had deposed before the State Commission that the Patient died because of Septicaemia, which occurred on account of infection. He further added that DIC is Widal in majority of cases and that he had seen the case paper of Dr. Jivram Mehta Hospital, wherein the treatment was rendered for the Septicaemia and DIC. When the Patient was treated for Septicaemia, which is admittedly caused on account of infection, and the Patient was under the treatment of the treating Doctor right from 08.08.2000 till 15.08.2000.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 257 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Dr. S.K.Jhunjhunwala vs Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumar on 1 October, 2018

12.     Learned Counsel has rightly relied on the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumari & Anr. (2019) 2 SCC 282, wherein  the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that negligence has to be decided on the touch stone whether the treating Doctor has adhered to the normal practice of medical parlance. Since the formulation of the Bolam test, English Courts have formulated a significantly nuanced doctrine pertaining to the standard of care.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001

In Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197,   a three judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration the multifarious services rendered  by a home maker and held the estimate arrived at ₹12,000/- per annum to be very low and enhanced the same to ₹36,000/- per annum for the age group of 34 to 59 years. In the instant case the Patient was working as a teacher, was only 28 years old and the mother of two children. She is also a homemaker and a part of the family which has lost a wife and a mother.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1298 - Full Document
1