Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Smt. Savita Garg vs The Director, National Heart Institute on 12 October, 2004
In Savita Garg v. National Heart
Institute [(2004) 8 SCC 56 : (2004) 8 Scale 694] this Court
opined: (SCC p. 61, para 5)
"5. It is a common experience that when a patient
goes to a private clinic, he goes by the reputation
of the clinic and with the hope that proper care
will be taken by the hospital authorities. It is not
possible for the patient to know which doctor will
LPA 23/2018 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL
KUMAR SACHDEVA
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:50:29
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005156
treat him. When a patient is admitted to a private
clinic/hospital it is the hospital/clinic which
engages the doctors for treatment. ... They charge
fees for the services rendered by them and they
are supposed to bestow the best care...."
Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors on 7 August, 2009
10.1 Admittedly, Respondent No.2 commenced and continued treatment
of the Appellant between 04.05.2013 and 04.06.2013 as an expert in
the field of infertility and gynaecology. This treatment of the
Appellant by an unqualified doctor and its repercussions on the
health of the Appellant has also not been looked into by either
Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.1 have arrived at a finding that there was correct,
ethical and professional treatment of the Appellant. However,
applying the principles as set forth in the Malay Kumar Ganguly case
LPA 23/2018 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL
KUMAR SACHDEVA
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:50:29
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005156
(supra), such treatment can only be presumed to be deficient
professional service.
Chanda Rani Akhouri . vs M.S.Methusethupathi . on 20 April, 2022
28. The term "negligence" has no defined boundaries and if
any medical negligence is there, whether it is pre or post-
operative medical care or in the follow-up care, at any
point of time by the treating doctors or anyone else, it is
always open to be considered by the Courts/Commission
taking note of the exposition of law laid down by this
Court of which a detailed reference has been made and
each case has to be examined on its own merits in
accordance with law."
Kamla Devi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 February, 2015
In this regard, he relied upon Kamla Devi case (supra), which has
also been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
7.1 It was further contended that as per the 'Peer Judge Peer' principle,
Respondent No.1 has concluded that there was no medical
negligence attributable on the part of Respondent No.2 and the
treatment that was administered to the Appellant was of the highest
medical standards that have been recognized by Respondent No.3
and Respondent No.1, consisting of experts in the field, who
specifically examined the treatment administered and have returned a
finding that there was no medical negligence insofar as the treatment,
that was administered to the Appellant.
1