Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)

Supriya Gupta, Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava ... vs The Trustees Of Breach Candy, Mr. Ashish ... on 27 October, 2005

24. The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 5 and 7 has relied upon the decision of the Honble National Commission in Supriya Gupta vs The Trustees of Beach Candy Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai in O.P.No. 7 of 1997 decided on 27.10.2005. In that case, the complainant had undergone coronary bypass surgery on 23.08.1995 and during the post-operative stage it was found that he contracted Hepatitis and the level of infection was very high and it was also found that he had an attack of serum Hepatitis B. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that he had no past history of Hepatitis and prior to surgery it was found negative and that he was not admitted to any other hospital nor any treatment was administered to him for any other illness and he contracted infection when blood was transfused to him by the hospital. It was contended on behalf of the hospital that the complainant had undergone tooth extraction and he did not submit the reports prior to his admission and after he was discharged from the hospital. The National Commission held that the complainant had not proved that he contracted the infection while undergoing operation and not due to a) use of infected needles whilst administering injection, b) blood transfusion-exposure to infected blood products; c) sexual intercourse; d) undergoing a surgical procedure or operation and e) by dental extraction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Escorts Heart Institute & Research ... vs Mrs.Harbans Kaur Chawla & Ors. on 20 September, 2012

In Escorts Heart Institute Case, the National Commission confirmed the award passed by the State Commission for `50,000/- towards compensation. In that case, the complainants liver was not extensively damaged and there was no need for transplantation of liver. The complainant claimed for an amount of `6,95,000/- and the State Commission held liable only the hospital and not the doctor and awarded the sum of `50,000/- in favour of the complainant. As the order of the State Commission confirmed by the National Commission, the ratio laid therein is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The complainant claimed an amount of `40 lakhs. The complainant has stated that she has incurred an amount of `1,90,000/-, `60,000/-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1