Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
1. Shri Satyanarayan Agarwala And Ors vs 1. Dr. (Mrs) Alaka Goswami, Ms ( ... on 10 October, 2013 cites

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

In such a case, the principle laid down in the case of Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56, would be applicable. In that case the Apex Court held that in such a case the principles of res ipsa loquitur (facts speak for themselves) will apply and the burden is on the hospital or doctors concerned who treated the patient, in defence to substantiate their allegation that there was no negligence. The relevant observations of the judgment are as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 257 - A K Mathur - Full Document

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

In a case reported in AIR 2008 SCC 1385 ( Samir Kohli Vs Prabha Manchanda & Anr), the Apex Court has considered the concept of Informed Consent developed in America which is widely followed in this country and also the concept of the kind of Additional Procedure carried out by the doctors, outside the consent. Observation of the Apex Court in the case (Supra) with regard to Informed Consent is quoted below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 141 - Full Document

Smt. Saroj Chandhoke Wife Of Sh. Kul ... vs Sir Ganga Ram Hospital And Dr. S.K. ... on 9 July, 2007

31. A case similar to the nature of the instant case, arose for consideration before the National Commission in III (2007) CPJ 189 (NC) ( Saroj Chandhoke Vs Ganga Ram Hospital & Anr) where the consent given for operation was for Hysterectomy, ovaries and left kidney of the patient were removed and one of the questions formulated by the National Commission in para 3 runs as follows:
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

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

Though this payment was denied by the other opposite parties, opposite party no. 6 has admitted in his evidence-in-chief that a sum of Rs. 5204/- was paid by the complainant while being admitted in the hospital for the operation. The Consultant Cardiologist, (Opposite Party No. 5) though denied in his in-chief to have received any fee, has admitted in his cross-examination that he charged fee on 8-6-03 from the deceased patient in connection with examination and test conducted by him. In view of the above factual position, it is proved and established that the opposite party no. 2, a private hospital, charged fees for treatment, operation and stay in the hospital. Question raised in connection with this issue have been discussed broadly by the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association Vs V.P. Shantha and Ors. Reported in III (1995) CPJ 1 SC, where the Contd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 575 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Syad Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 1979

47. This is a case where the doctrine of Res-Ipsa-Loquitur is squarely applicable considering the sequence of events, conduct of all the opposite parties, inability to find out the exact cause of death, impossibility of the complainant to know what had happened inside the Operation Theatre, the death of the patient taking place on the operating table and in such circumstances, only the facts speak for themselves and tell their own story are the ingredients of the doctrine of Res-Ipsa-Loquitur. This aspect was also dealt with by the Apex Court in Syad Akbar Vs State of Karnataka, 1979 AIR (SC)-0-1848. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 525 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1