Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Mrs. Vijaya Mukhi vs Dr. (Mrs.) Minna S. Tandon on 29 February, 2012 cites

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

In a judgment reported as Kusum Sharma and Others Vs Batra Hospital and Medical Reasearch Centre and Others (Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2001 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , while exercising civil appellate jurisdiction), the Apex Court has dealt with and laid down the necessary ingredients characterizing Medical Negligence. I have gone through the judgment and have relied upon the observations given therein.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 325 - Full Document

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

The Supreme Court has held in Jacob Mathew's case that a Surgeon with shaky hands , under fear of legal action could never perform a successful operation. Doctors in complicated cases have to take chances , even if the success rate is low. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no doctor could administer medicine without a halter around his neck. The Supreme Court has observed that it is our bounden duty and obligation that medical practitioners are not harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their duties without fear and apprehension. The interest and welfare of the patients is paramount but the medical professionals are also entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and in the interest of the patients. In my considered view, no case for recovery of damages on account of negligence of the Defendant is made out. The Defendant can not be held guilty of medical negligence and, therefore, it is held that Plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of Damages as prayed for. Issues are decided against the Plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Samira Kohli vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr on 16 January, 2008

claiming that the procedure was never required and had infact never been consented to by her or by her husband at any point of time .She also claimed that she had subsequently consulted another doctor namely Dr. B.R Chopra ,who was of the opinion that that the technique was unheard of and was not required. However ,Plaintiff did not produce Dr.B.R. Chopra in the witness box to testify in support of her stand .She also admitted that she had never taken any opinion of Dr. B.R.Chopra in writing in respect of the treatment carried out by the Defendant .On the other hand ,Defendant claimed that she had taken consent from the Plaintiff and her husband before performing the procedure upon her. No consent ,either written or oral was proved to have been given by the Plaintiff in the case. The prescription slip Ex DW1/P1 also did not contain any entry showing consent on the part of the Plaintiff. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a Judgment reported as Samira Kohli vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Anr (reported as Civil Appeal No 1949 of 2004, judgement dated 16.01.08 ) that where the consent by a patient is for a particular operative surgery ,it cannot be treated as a consent for an unauthorized additional procedure involving removal of an organ ,only on the ground that the removal is beneficial to the patient or is likely to prevent some danger developing in future ,where there is no imminent danger to the life or health of the patient.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 141 - Full Document
1