Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
M/S. Sundaram Medical Foundation Dr. ... vs V. Thanikaivelan S/O. Dr. P. ... on 31 May, 2011 cites

Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 February, 1996

16. As seen from the records, the complainant was given only conservative treatment i.e., not going for surgery. The problem is only in the right leg, and there appears to be no problem, as far as the fracture in the left wrist is concerned. Closed tibial shaft fracture, can usually be managed effectively, with cast or press immobilization, if acceptable alignment is maintained, which procedure appears to be adopted in this case. It is the dictum of the Apex Court also in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Civil Appeal No.3318/1979, The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor be be guilty of negligence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 284 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

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

In Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) , the Apex Court had considered not only the law of this land, but also the law pronounced by other countries, wherein it is observed a medical practitioner was not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgement in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968

In Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and another, reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court it is observed, The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency, thereby indicating a doctor is the best judge to give the treatment, or decide the nature of treatment, diagnosing the problem, with the consent of the party in which we cannot interfere casually, unless it is shown positively, emphathetically, undoubtedly, that the doctor failed in his duty or his action was below the standard, which was expected from a prudent doctor. Having the above principle in mind, now we have to see, what kind of treatment opted by the complainant, and what kind of treatment given by the opposite parties, whether it would amount to negligence or deficiency though there was a deformity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 336 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1