Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.36 seconds)
Lifecell International Private ... vs Sushil Mukesh Gaglani & 2 Ors. on 23 April, 2026 cites

Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005

"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 truth even though it remained unsupported by any evidence. As already observed in Jacob Mathew case [(2005) 6 SCC 1 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1369] the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facta probantia."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

M.A. Biviji vs Sunita on 19 October, 2023

35. Learned District Forum as well as learned State Commission apparently missed the caution emphasized by Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.A. Biviji v. Sunita & Ors. (supra) whereby it was observed that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible prosecution or harassment that they may be subjected to, in high-risk medical situations. Therefore, to safeguard medical practitioners and to ensure that they are able to freely discharge their medical duty, a higher proof of burden must be fulfilled by the RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 36 of 38 complainant. The complainant should be able to prove a breach of duty and the subsequent injury being attributable to the aforesaid breach. On the other hand, doctors need to establish that they had followed reasonable standards of medical practice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H Roy - Full Document

B.V.Nagesh & Anr vs H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy on 24 September, 2010

Learned counsels for OPs further contended that PRP procedure does not come under the purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is not regulated under the Schedule F. Reference to Rule 122G(i) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the learned State Commission is stated to be erroneous as no licence is required for the purpose of undertaking „PRP‟ procedure for hair re-growth. It is further emphasized that complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of misrepresentation by OP-2. It is pointed out that the complainant could RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 20 of 38 have discontinued the treatment after the first or second session, if he was dissatisfied with the treatment in any manner. However, the complaint was preferred by the complainant after more than two years of completion of the third session merely because the results expected by the complainant were not forthcoming. Reliance is further placed by the learned counsels for OPs on the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (3) CPR 70 (SC); City Union Bank Ltd. v. V.R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC Online SC 341; Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 66; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwati Kaur & Ors., 2018/INSC/915; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (MANU/SC/0778/2018); B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors., MANU/SC/1024/2002; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors, (1976) 2 SCC 17; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 634; M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia (Through K.S. Ahluwalia & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 39; Groenwald v. Groenwald, 1988 (2) SA 1106 SCA; MEC Health, Eastern Cape v. Mikhitha, (1221/15) (2016) ZA SCA; Hunter v. Hanley, (1955) SLT 213; Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College and Hospital & Ors., 2003 (1) CPR 238 (NC); RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 21 of 38 Seturaman Subramanian v. Triveni Nursing Home & Anr., 1998 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC); Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480; Hector v. Cedars Sinai Medical Centre (Court of Appeals of California, 1986); DCM Data Products v. Hanuman Prasad Poddar Canter Hospital, 1986-1995 CONSUMER 290 NS and Herric v. Middlesex Hospital Superior Court (Judicial District of Middlesex, 2005).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 333 - Full Document

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs M.R.T.P. Commission & Ors on 20 November, 2002

Learned counsels for OPs further contended that PRP procedure does not come under the purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is not regulated under the Schedule F. Reference to Rule 122G(i) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the learned State Commission is stated to be erroneous as no licence is required for the purpose of undertaking „PRP‟ procedure for hair re-growth. It is further emphasized that complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of misrepresentation by OP-2. It is pointed out that the complainant could RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 20 of 38 have discontinued the treatment after the first or second session, if he was dissatisfied with the treatment in any manner. However, the complaint was preferred by the complainant after more than two years of completion of the third session merely because the results expected by the complainant were not forthcoming. Reliance is further placed by the learned counsels for OPs on the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (3) CPR 70 (SC); City Union Bank Ltd. v. V.R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC Online SC 341; Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 66; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwati Kaur & Ors., 2018/INSC/915; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (MANU/SC/0778/2018); B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors., MANU/SC/1024/2002; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors, (1976) 2 SCC 17; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 634; M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia (Through K.S. Ahluwalia & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 39; Groenwald v. Groenwald, 1988 (2) SA 1106 SCA; MEC Health, Eastern Cape v. Mikhitha, (1221/15) (2016) ZA SCA; Hunter v. Hanley, (1955) SLT 213; Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College and Hospital & Ors., 2003 (1) CPR 238 (NC); RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 21 of 38 Seturaman Subramanian v. Triveni Nursing Home & Anr., 1998 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC); Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480; Hector v. Cedars Sinai Medical Centre (Court of Appeals of California, 1986); DCM Data Products v. Hanuman Prasad Poddar Canter Hospital, 1986-1995 CONSUMER 290 NS and Herric v. Middlesex Hospital Superior Court (Judicial District of Middlesex, 2005).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors on 25 April, 1975

Learned counsels for OPs further contended that PRP procedure does not come under the purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is not regulated under the Schedule F. Reference to Rule 122G(i) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the learned State Commission is stated to be erroneous as no licence is required for the purpose of undertaking „PRP‟ procedure for hair re-growth. It is further emphasized that complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of misrepresentation by OP-2. It is pointed out that the complainant could RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 20 of 38 have discontinued the treatment after the first or second session, if he was dissatisfied with the treatment in any manner. However, the complaint was preferred by the complainant after more than two years of completion of the third session merely because the results expected by the complainant were not forthcoming. Reliance is further placed by the learned counsels for OPs on the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (3) CPR 70 (SC); City Union Bank Ltd. v. V.R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC Online SC 341; Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 66; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwati Kaur & Ors., 2018/INSC/915; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (MANU/SC/0778/2018); B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors., MANU/SC/1024/2002; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors, (1976) 2 SCC 17; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 634; M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia (Through K.S. Ahluwalia & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 39; Groenwald v. Groenwald, 1988 (2) SA 1106 SCA; MEC Health, Eastern Cape v. Mikhitha, (1221/15) (2016) ZA SCA; Hunter v. Hanley, (1955) SLT 213; Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College and Hospital & Ors., 2003 (1) CPR 238 (NC); RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 21 of 38 Seturaman Subramanian v. Triveni Nursing Home & Anr., 1998 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC); Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480; Hector v. Cedars Sinai Medical Centre (Court of Appeals of California, 1986); DCM Data Products v. Hanuman Prasad Poddar Canter Hospital, 1986-1995 CONSUMER 290 NS and Herric v. Middlesex Hospital Superior Court (Judicial District of Middlesex, 2005).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 120 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 February, 1996

Learned counsels for OPs further contended that PRP procedure does not come under the purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is not regulated under the Schedule F. Reference to Rule 122G(i) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the learned State Commission is stated to be erroneous as no licence is required for the purpose of undertaking „PRP‟ procedure for hair re-growth. It is further emphasized that complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of misrepresentation by OP-2. It is pointed out that the complainant could RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 20 of 38 have discontinued the treatment after the first or second session, if he was dissatisfied with the treatment in any manner. However, the complaint was preferred by the complainant after more than two years of completion of the third session merely because the results expected by the complainant were not forthcoming. Reliance is further placed by the learned counsels for OPs on the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (3) CPR 70 (SC); City Union Bank Ltd. v. V.R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC Online SC 341; Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 66; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwati Kaur & Ors., 2018/INSC/915; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (MANU/SC/0778/2018); B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors., MANU/SC/1024/2002; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors, (1976) 2 SCC 17; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 634; M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia (Through K.S. Ahluwalia & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 39; Groenwald v. Groenwald, 1988 (2) SA 1106 SCA; MEC Health, Eastern Cape v. Mikhitha, (1221/15) (2016) ZA SCA; Hunter v. Hanley, (1955) SLT 213; Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College and Hospital & Ors., 2003 (1) CPR 238 (NC); RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 21 of 38 Seturaman Subramanian v. Triveni Nursing Home & Anr., 1998 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC); Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480; Hector v. Cedars Sinai Medical Centre (Court of Appeals of California, 1986); DCM Data Products v. Hanuman Prasad Poddar Canter Hospital, 1986-1995 CONSUMER 290 NS and Herric v. Middlesex Hospital Superior Court (Judicial District of Middlesex, 2005).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 284 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

M/S. Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr vs Harjol Ahluwalia Through, K.S. ... on 25 March, 1998

Learned counsels for OPs further contended that PRP procedure does not come under the purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and is not regulated under the Schedule F. Reference to Rule 122G(i) framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the learned State Commission is stated to be erroneous as no licence is required for the purpose of undertaking „PRP‟ procedure for hair re-growth. It is further emphasized that complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of misrepresentation by OP-2. It is pointed out that the complainant could RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 20 of 38 have discontinued the treatment after the first or second session, if he was dissatisfied with the treatment in any manner. However, the complaint was preferred by the complainant after more than two years of completion of the third session merely because the results expected by the complainant were not forthcoming. Reliance is further placed by the learned counsels for OPs on the Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (3) CPR 70 (SC); City Union Bank Ltd. v. V.R. Chandramohan, 2023 SCC Online SC 341; Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 66; S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwati Kaur & Ors., 2018/INSC/915; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (MANU/SC/0778/2018); B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors., MANU/SC/1024/2002; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors, (1976) 2 SCC 17; Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 634; M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia (Through K.S. Ahluwalia & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 39; Groenwald v. Groenwald, 1988 (2) SA 1106 SCA; MEC Health, Eastern Cape v. Mikhitha, (1221/15) (2016) ZA SCA; Hunter v. Hanley, (1955) SLT 213; Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College and Hospital & Ors., 2003 (1) CPR 238 (NC); RP/1038/2020, 1183/2020, 182/2021, 681/2022, 682/2022, 683/2022 Page 21 of 38 Seturaman Subramanian v. Triveni Nursing Home & Anr., 1998 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC); Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 480; Hector v. Cedars Sinai Medical Centre (Court of Appeals of California, 1986); DCM Data Products v. Hanuman Prasad Poddar Canter Hospital, 1986-1995 CONSUMER 290 NS and Herric v. Middlesex Hospital Superior Court (Judicial District of Middlesex, 2005).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 194 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next