Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Ranbir Singh vs Dr.Naresh Mittal on 21 July, 2017 cites

Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors on 7 August, 2009

20.              Same type of findings were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case law Criminal Appeal Nos.1191-1194 of 2005 'Malay Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others' decided on August 07th, 2009.  As per facts of case law referred above, the patient was not referred to a Dermatologist as she had skin rashes all over her body.  Diagnosis of the patient that she was suffering from angioneurotic oedema with allergic vasculitis, was wrong. Moreover, patient was given a dose of 80 mg Depomedrol injection twice daily for the next three days and continued treatment on the same line.  Moreover, steroid was unnecessarily used at the time of treatment by the doctor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 369 - S B Sinha - Full Document

V. Kishan Rao vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr on 8 March, 2010

21.              As per facts of case law referred above in V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & another, (Supra), the patient was given treatment of typhoid whereas patient was suffering only from malaria fever.  In the death certificate issued by Yashoda Hospital also it was mentioned that the patient died due to cardio respiratory arrest and malaria.  In this way, wrong treatment was given to the patient.    We find cited case laws above are not of much help to the complainants as facts and circumstances of the case in hand are somewhat different from the facts and circumstances of the above cited case laws.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 350 - Full Document

St. Stephens Hospital vs Smt. Roshani Devi on 1 August, 2013

24.              We have closely perused the above cited Roshani Devi's case law (Supra) and the same is not of much help to the complainant in this case. As per facts of case law referred above, platelets count was reduced from 19000 to 16000 at the time of discharge. As per facts of that case there was serious problem in the abdomen and liver of the patient. Blood tests etc were conducted but no test in respect of liver of the patient was conducted. In that case, problem arose as neither any test in respect of patient's liver was conducted nor any treatment was given. Facts and circumstances of the above cited case laws are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1