Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)
Dr. Om Prakash Anand vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2022 cites

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

The hospital in question was taken over under section 65 of the Disaster Management Act in view of the fact that the hospital was discharging the government duty. From paragraph no.52 of the judgment in the case of "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab"(supra), it is crystal clear that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. It is also clear that the investigating officer should be very cautious in proceeding with the investigation and should strictly follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made at paragraph no.52 of the said judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

Ms. Pinky Anand, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the case is arising out of a medical treatment provided to the father of the 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1914 of 2021 informant and in absence of any preliminary enquiry the F.I.R has been registered which is against the mandate of law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. She submitted that father of the informant was admitted on 26.04.2021 and he left for his heavenly abode on 01.05.2021 and this fact has been disclosed in the F.I.R. She further submitted that this petitioner who is a practicing doctor is being harassed by the administration as he has raised certain voice against the functioning of the Government Health Department in the State of Jharkhand. She submitted that this petitioner has been implicated in four cases. She submitted that even after institution of two cases i.e. R.I.T. P.S.Case No.68/2021 and the present case i.e. R.I.T. P.S.Case 17/2021 and R.I.T. P.S.Case No.129/2021 have been instituted against this petitioner. She submitted that all these happened only when the petitioner has raised voice against the medical department of Government of Jharkhand. She further submitted that the case in hand, the death occurred due to cardiac arrest and infection in the lungs and certificate to that has been issued by the hospital, the cremation was also done on 01.05.2021 without any protest. Since it was the natural death, when there were no protest the question of the post mortem did not arise and the cremation was allowed to be done by the O.P.no.2. She submitted that father of the petitioner has also been infected with covid-19. She took the Court to the contents of the F.I.R and submitted that it was in the knowledge of the informant that oxygen level of her father was fluctuating and her father was put on ventilator and inspite of best efforts, the team of doctors have not be able to save the life of her father and death occurred after five days of treatment. She submitted 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1914 of 2021 that after 21 days of cremation the said FIR has been lodged which is an afterthought or may be at the instigation of somebody. She submitted that even without any 41A Cr.P.C notice in the case in hand the petitioner was put behind bars and remained in jail custody for more than four months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next