Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
Sandeep Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2023 cites

Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq on 17 February, 2009

XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals. The Supreme Court in the case of Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in (2009) 3 SCC 1 has held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 502 - M Katju - Full Document

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

In fact in the aforesaid decision it has been observed (vide SCC para 22) : (V.P. Shantha case [(1995) 6 SCC 651] , SCC p. 665) "22. In the matter of professional liability professions differ from other occupations for the reason that professions operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure depends upon factors beyond the professional man's control."
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 575 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Kusum Sharma And Ors. vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research ... on 30 August, 2000

52. Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 04-07-2023 14:49:12 5 incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. 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. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld." The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Sharma and others vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Center and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 480 has held as under:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 325 - Full Document
1