Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Putcha Gurudev Datta & 2 Ors. vs M/S. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. & ... on 18 February, 2026 cites

Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha & Ors on 13 November, 1995

(W)here you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he as not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and profession to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill.....It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art 9.1 The Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association V V. P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651 has brought the medical profession within the ambit of the Act. The Supreme Court after referring Lucknow Development Authority V M.K. Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC observed that keeping in view the wide amplitude of the definition of service in the main part of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act, there is no plausible reason to exclude the services rendered by a medical practitioner from the ambit of the main part of Section 2(1) (o). The Supreme Court in an action for negligence in tort against a surgeon in Laxman Balakrishna Joshi V Trimbak Bapu Godbole & another, 1969 (1) SCR 206 held that the duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear and a person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. It was further held that such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties which are a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment and a breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. It was also held that the practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. The relationship between a medical practitioner and a patient carries within it certain degree of mutual confidence and trust. The Supreme Court also observed that section 14 of the Act indicates that the reliefs that can be granted on a complaint filed under the Act in respect of deficiency in service and the compensation can be awarded for loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including medical negligence. The Supreme Court in Dr. C. P. Sreekumar V S. Ramanujam, II (2009) CPJ 48 (SC) which is also referred by the counsels for the opposite parties held that onus to prove medical negligence lies on the claimant and this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. This Commission in Nalini V Manipur Hospital & others, IV (2011) CPJ 280 (NC) observed that appellant's case of alleged medical negligence cannot be accepted only on basis of affidavit without support of any expert opinion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 575 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq on 17 February, 2009

This edict was reiterated in Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq7 wherein, it was pointed out that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to a patient as the reputation of that professional would be at stake and a single failure may cost him or her dear in that lapse. It was also pointed out that sometimes, despite best efforts, the treatment by a doctor may fail but that does not mean that the doctor or surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he or she is. It was also pointed out that Courts and Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. While acknowledging that the medical profession had been commercialised to some extent and there were doctors who depart from their Hippocratic Oath for their selfish ends of making money, this Court held that the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 502 - M Katju - Full Document

Smt. Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani, vs Care Hospitals Institute Of Medical ... on 24 March, 2021

24. On the same lines, in Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani and others vs. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences and others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1608 it was held that unless a complainant is able to establish a specific course of conduct, suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctor on the line of treatment which was administered and, in the absence of such material disclosing medical negligence, the Court cannot form a view at variance, as every death in the institutionalised environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - R K Agrawal - Full Document
1