Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smt. Anita on 10 October, 2022 cites

State Of Punjab vs Shiv Ram & Ors on 25 August, 2005

on 22.01.2009, i.e., after a period of more than three years' from the date of operation. Even otherwise, the decision cited on behalf of the complainant does not hold good in view of the latest law on the subject, as discussed above. This apart, the decision given in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra) is two Judges' Bench decision, whereas the decision given in the case of State of Punjab (supra) is a three Judges' Bench decision headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and in the case of State of Punjab (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed its earlier decision given in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra) and it was held that in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra), the lady had offered herself for complete sterilization and not for partial operation and, therefore, both her fallopian tubes should have been operated upon. It was found as a matter of fact that only the right fallopian tube was operated upon and the left fallopian tube was left untouched. It was in such circumstances that a case of medical negligence was found and a decree for compensation in tort was held justified. Thus, the said case proceeded on its own facts. The facts of each and every case are different and every case has to be decided on its own merit. It is also not denied that the prior to the operation, a consent letter / form was signed by the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 204 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Dr. S.K. Gupta vs Sh. Rajbir Singh on 17 August, 2010

18. This Commission in its decision dated 17.08.2010 rendered in First Appeal No. 291 of 2007; Dr. S.K. Gupta and others vs. Sh. Rajbir Singh, under the similar circumstances, has held that the case of medical negligence against the operating surgeon is not made out and the complainant was not held entitled to any relief and the order passed by the District Forum, allowing the consumer complaint, was set aside.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Smt. Santra on 24 April, 2000

on 22.01.2009, i.e., after a period of more than three years' from the date of operation. Even otherwise, the decision cited on behalf of the complainant does not hold good in view of the latest law on the subject, as discussed above. This apart, the decision given in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra) is two Judges' Bench decision, whereas the decision given in the case of State of Punjab (supra) is a three Judges' Bench decision headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and in the case of State of Punjab (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed its earlier decision given in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra) and it was held that in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra), the lady had offered herself for complete sterilization and not for partial operation and, therefore, both her fallopian tubes should have been operated upon. It was found as a matter of fact that only the right fallopian tube was operated upon and the left fallopian tube was left untouched. It was in such circumstances that a case of medical negligence was found and a decree for compensation in tort was held justified. Thus, the said case proceeded on its own facts. The facts of each and every case are different and every case has to be decided on its own merit. It is also not denied that the prior to the operation, a consent letter / form was signed by the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 111 - Full Document
1