Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
R.Sasi & 2 Others vs Sundaram Medical Foundation, ... on 7 June, 2023 cites

Balram Prasad vs Kunal Saha & Ors on 24 October, 2013

513), it is categorically held by the Apex Court that, where the facts speak for themselves, there is no need to call for an expert evidence. In the present case also, there is no need to adduce any expert opinion owing to the self-speaking facts and light-throwing documents about the glaring medical 16 negligence of the OPs. Since the complainants, after the loss of their family head, still continue to live under mental agony, trauma, misery and stress, it is just and necessary that the relief sought for may be granted by allowing the complaint in its entirety, in line with the core basis adopted by the Supreme Court in Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha and others (2014 - 1- SCC - 384) that the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by the claimant as well as the future losses upto the date of trial must be considered for the quantum of compensation; learned counsel pleaded ultimately.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 173 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Kusum Sharma And Ors. vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research ... on 30 August, 2000

The primary duty cast upon a Doctor is to provide required medical care and treatment to the patient, who presented himself with an illness, by exercising a reasonable degree of professional skill that includes proper diagnosis. No prudent doctor would randomly suggest an extra diagnosis without any necessity in a situation where he had already diagnosed the cause for the painful illness or ailment with which the patient had come to him. As we have already mentioned, if the complications/sufferings of the patient due to the inflamed appendix with which he was presented at the initial stage were not addressed immediately by the OPs, he might have lost his life and, in that instance, the complainants would have turned the table with the same allegation of medical negligence as a double-edged weapon. At this juncture, it is apt to add the following observation of the 38 Apex Court made in Kusum Sharma & Others vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and Others (2010 - 3 - SCC - 480):-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 325 - Full Document

Ranjit Sarkar vs Ils Hospitals & 6 Ors. on 9 March, 2021

In fact, soon after detecting cancer, combined efforts were taken by the Medical Team as a whole and, from the records we find, after consultation with the hematologist, it 47 was the relatives of the complainant who had decided to shift the patient to the Apollo. The discharge summary of Apollo under Ex.A5 falsifies the pleadings of the 1 st complainant that she was directed by the said Hospital's Authorities to shift the patient to the Cancer Research Centre at Adyar, and the same shows otherwise that, due to financial constraint, the patient was discharged at request with an advice to continue further treatment at the Adyar Cancer Research Centre. The other grievance of the 1st complainant that the 2nd OP resorted to the open surgery/appendectomy without doing the procedure laparoscopically, that her husband was seen weak after the removal of intestinal obstruction and that she was not told the reason for accumulation of blood in the abdomen of the patient is bereft of any merit as such allegations are self- serving in nature that do not point towards any medical negligence against the OPs. Deprecating the practice of filing vexatious litigations against the Medical Professionals, the National Commission, in Ranjit Sarkar vs. ILS Hospitals 48 & Ors (Manu/CF/0063/2021), has made the following observations:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document
1