Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.69 seconds)
Pooja Gupta vs Max Hospital And Others on 4 May, 2017 cites

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

22. Another plea has been taken by the counsel for the complainant that informed consent was not taken from the patient. As is clear from the pleadings of the Ops itself when the patient reported to the Hospital on 17.9.2013, first efforts were made to stabilize him and on 18.9.2013, angiography was done and he was suggested pacemaker. For implantation of the pacemaker, primarily the consent of the patient should have been taken, not the attendants. Whereas on the record, the Ops have placed the consent forms Ex. R-3 for CRT. In the consent form dated 18.9.2013 (Ex. R-4), the consent of the brother of the patient has been taken. The counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment 2008(1) CLT 426 "Samira Kohli versus Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr." wherein it has been observed that when a patient is competent adult and not mentally challenged nor incapacitated, there is no question of someone else giving consent on his behalf. It was argued by the counsel for the Ops that before taking the surgery, consent of Rishi Gupta was taken as per Ex. R-3. No doubt that at the time of surgery, its consent has been taken but even when the consent was taken for implantation of the pacemaker, consent of the patient was required when the patient was adult and was in senses. Therefore, Ops are also deficient in not taking the informed consent of the patient at the time of taking consent for implantation of the pacemaker.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 141 - Full Document

Jt.Collector Ranga Reddy Dist.& ... vs D.Narsing Rao & Ors. Etc.Etc on 13 January, 2015

20. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) JT 630 "V. Kishan Rao versus Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Another" that an expert witness in a given case normally discharges two functions. First duty of the expert is to explain the technical issues as clearly as possible so that it can be understood by a common man. The other function is to assist the Fora in deciding whether the acts or omissions of the medical practitioner or the hospital constitute negligence. Otherwise, Consumer Fora is not bound by the view expressed by the expert because medical negligence is a mixed question of law and facts, which is required Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 2014 19 to be resolved by the Forum. In this particular case, the Board had assessed the entire record but the Board has not given any detailed discussion with regard to the inconsistency in the record. It has just concluded that the proper protocol was followed by Op No. 3 and by that in a biventricular pacemaker (triple chamber pacemaker), it can be fitted in two stages. However, the Board of Doctors is silent with regard to X-ray report Ex. C-6 referred above wherein it has been mentioned Left ECPM with wires, sterna metallic sutures seen in situ. It does not give the version given by the Ops that only RA & RV were fitted to the patient and 3rd lead i.e. LV lead was not available and it was fixed on 22.9.2013. It cannot be denied that ECPM cannot be fitted till all the leads are in place. In case ECPM was not fitted, it was not complete set then how the medical notes dated 20.9.2013 say "Patient CRT done." There is no reference that the Board of Doctors had checked the X- ray report and X-ray films dated 20.9.2013 and 22.9.2013 and what was their report with regard to the implantation of the pacemaker. Pacemaker has not been referred. There is reference in the post mortem report of only RA & RV and no report with regard to the LV lead.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 234 - C Nagappan - Full Document

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

In two other decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. "Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Rimbak Bapu Godbole & Anr.", AIR 1969 SC 128 and "A.S. Mittal vs. State of U.P.", AIR 1989 SC 1570, it was laid down that "when a Doctor is consulted by a patient, the former, namely, the Doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are (a) a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; (b) a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and (c) a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his Doctor." However, in view of the reasons stated above, the Ops failed to fulfill these requirements in the instant case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Ops conducted surgery in negligent manner and took the life of young person, aged about 42 years. No doubt that he had a heart problem but the people had lived the life for number of years with the pacemaker. In case proper procedure and proper post care would have been taken, perhaps the patient could have survived. Therefore, we conclude that Op No. 3 only is negligent in conducting the procedure for implantation of the pacemaker and post operative care whereas Op No. 1 being the hospital is vicariously liable. Op No. 2 is Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and apparently he does not have Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 2014 24 any direct role in it, whereas Op No. 4 is Dr. Pawan K. Kansal to whom the patient had approached first time and he recommended the patient to Op Hospital, therefore, no negligence attributed to this Doctor. Op No. 5 is firm, which supplied the pacemaker. There was no defect in the pacemaker itself, therefore, Op No. 5 cannot be held liable for any lapse. Op No. 6 is the Insurance Company covering Op no. 4. In case there is no negligence on the part of Op No. 4 then Op No. 6 is not liable in any manner. In nutshell, Op Nos. 1 & 3 are liable for medical negligence for causing the death of Rishi Gupta.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 336 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1