Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Dileshwar Verma vs Sona Bai on 12 December, 2024 cites

Dileshwar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 Wps/5393/2018 ... on 23 August, 2018

"9. However, if a person who has no education in medicine dispenses medicines and administers injection to a sick person that by itself will be a case of gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service, since such a person is not at all equipped with requisite knowledge and expertise to dispense medicines and/or administering injections to a patient brought to him. If persons such as the respondent before us, is allowed to practice medicine, that is likely to jeopardize the health and life of the patients, on account of consumption of a wrong medicine or administration of any injection which may not be suitable for treatment of the ailment from which he is suffering. Such persons pose a great risk to the society particularly illiterate and semi illiterate persons living in villages and remote areas who do not always have access to qualified doctors and government hospitals/dispensaries and, therefore, may, in sheer desperation, approach such self-styled doctors for treatment of the ailments from which they are suffering. Therefore, adequate compensation needs to All appeals dismissed. Page 10 of 11 Appeal Nos. : Dileshwar Verma Vs. Sona Bai Date of Pronouncement:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P S Koshy - Full Document

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

In that case the patient was treated free of cost on the basis of BPL Card and it was found proved that the appellant Hospital, in that case, used to provide free treatment and free examination facilities to the patients, who are BPL cardholders and for other patients they used to charge for treatment as well as examinations. In the facts of the present case the appellant/ opposite party is neither a Hospital nor an Institution where patients can be categorized in free and paid patients. Learned appellant‟s counsel pressed upon this issue that the respondent/ complainant is not a „consumer‟ of the appellant/opposite party on the saying only free advice was given by the appellant / opposite party to the respondent/ complainant to get her sugar level and blood tested along with some other medical examinations but no treatment was given by him to the respondent/ complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 575 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next