Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.59 seconds)
Dhanshree Surolia D/O Ravi Surolia And ... vs Oasia Medicare Pvt. Ltd. on 8 February, 2024 cites

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

to the decision in Martin F. D'Suza versus Mohd. Ishfaq, ( 2009) 3SCC 1 wherein it is stated that simply because the patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straight away liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor. It is further observed therein that sometimes despite best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails and the same does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon must be held guilty of medical negligence unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that the doctor is negligent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 502 - M Katju - Full Document

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

jlhn izkIr djrk gS rFkk fpfdRld ds ikl ejht dks ys tkrk gS] rc ;g vko';d gS fd mDr fpfdRld ds }kjk Prescription vo'; cuk;k tk;sxk fdUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa ifjoknhx.k ds }kjk foi{kh la[;k 6 fpfdRld ds }kjk rS;kj fd;k x;k Prescription izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] tcfd foi{kh la[;k 4 dk ;g dguk jgk gS fd foi{kh la[;k 6 ds Prescription ds vk/kkj ij mUgksaus fnukad 22-02-2016 dks fMLpktZ fVdV ij Fundus Examination ds ckjs esa vadu fd;k Fkk rFkk fMLpktZ fVdV ij Follow of collum esa Fundus Examination ds fy, lykg Hkh nh xbZ gS fdUrq ifjoknhx.k Lo;a Fundus Examination ds ckjs esa ltx ugha jgs gSaA ifjoknhx.k dk ;g dguk Hkh ekuk tkos fd foi{kh la[;k 6 fpfdRld us fo'ks"kK MkW- jkto/kZu flag dk fnYyh ls vkdj Fundus Examination djuk crk;k Fkk fQj Hkh ifjoknhx.k nqckjk dHkh Fundus Examination ds fy, foi{kh la[;k 6 ds ikl ugha x;s gSaA bl izdkj ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd ifjoknhx.k Lo;a Fundus Examination ds ckjs esa ykijokg jgs gSaA 14- ifjoknhx.k ;g ekurs gSa fd fnukad 01-03-2016 dks tc ifjoknh la[;k 1 dks ysdj foi{kh la[;k 4 ds ikl x;s] rc foi{kh la[;k 4 ds }kjk Fundus Examination ds ckjs esa iwNk x;k gSA mlds i'pkr fnukad 16-03- 2016 rFkk 31-03-2016 dks foi{kh la[;k 4 ds }kjk ROP ds ckjs esa dksbZ iwNrkN ugha fd;s tkus dk vkjksi ifjoknhx.k ds }kjk yxk;k x;k gSA bl ckjs esa ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh la[;k 4 cPpksa dk fpfdRld gS rFkk mlds ikl ifjoknh la[;k 1 dks mldh xzksFk ,oa Development ds fy, gh ys tk;k x;k gS rFkk mlds }kjk bu rkjh[kksa dks cPps dh xzksFk ,oa Development ds ckjs esa gh nokb;k¡ nh xbZ gS vFkkZr~ foi{kh la[;k 4 dk nkf;Ro ROP ls lacaf/kr ugha Fkk cfYd Lo;a ifjoknhx.k ROP ls lacfa /kr Fundus Examination ds ckjs esa ykijokg jgs gSaA 15-¼1½ ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d n`"Vkar Kusum Sharma & Others Vs Batra Hospital Medical Research Centre & Others ds ekeys esa fuEufyf[kr 11 fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;s gSa] ftuds vk/kkj ij fpfdRlk ykijokgh dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkosxk %& 12 jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx] t;iqj ifjokn la[;k 72@2017 Dhanshree Surolia & Anr.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 325 - Full Document

C.P.Sreekumar M.S (Ortho) vs S.Ramanujam on 1 May, 2009

mijksDr iSjk la[;k 40 o 42 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk gS fd ;fn dksbZ vkWijs'ku vlQy gks tkrk gS] rc blh vk/kkj ij vkWijs'ku djus okys fpfdRld dks fpfdRlk ykijokgh dk nks"kh res ipsa loquitur fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij ugha ekuk tkosxkA ;g Hkh ekuk x;k gS fd ;fn dksbZ ejht ej tkrk gS vFkok fLFkfr fcxM+ tkrh gS] rc fpfdRld ij vkjksi yxkus dh VsUMsUlh gksrh gS] tcfd vPNs ls vPNk izksQs'kuy Hkh failure gks tkrk gS] tSls fd ,d vf/koDrk ges'kk gh viuk izdj.k ugha thr ikrk gSA 17(2) ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar C.P. Sreekumar(Dr.), MS (Ortho) v S.Ramanujam, (2009) 7 SCC 130 ds iSjk la[;k 37 esa fuEu fof/k fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%& "37. We find from a reading of the order of the Commission that it proceeded on the basis that whatever had been alleged in the complaint by the respondent was in fact the inviolable 17 jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx] t;iqj ifjokn la[;k 72@2017 Dhanshree Surolia & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 169 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Dr. Harsih Kumar Khurana vs Joginder Singh . on 7 September, 2021

mijksDr iSjkt esa Hkh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Hkh ;gh ekuk gS fd ;fn dksbZ unfortunate ?kVuk ?kfVr gks tkrh gS] rc ;g VsUMsUlh jgrh gS fd bl ?kVuk ds ?kfVr gksus dk dkj.k Li"V gksuk pkfg;s rFkk vkjksi yxkus dh VsUMsUlh gksrh gS] fdarq vizR;kf'kr ?kVuk ?kfVr gksus ds dkj.k gh nks"kh ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg;s] cfYd izksQs'kuy dks izksVsD'ku feyuk pkfg;sA 17¼4½ ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v Joginder Singh and ors., (2021) SCC Online SC 673 ds iSjk la[;k 11 ,oa iSjk la[;k 14 esa fuEufyf[kr fof/k fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;s x;s gaS%& "11. ........ Ordinarily an accident means an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence, something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated. The learned counsel has also referred 19 jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx] t;iqj ifjokn la[;k 72@2017 Dhanshree Surolia & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 61 - A S Bopanna - Full Document
1