Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Bachan Singh Son Of Ram Singh, vs Satyam Hospital And Trauma Centre, ... on 12 March, 2014 cites

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

14. Firstly so far as expert opinion is concerned, the counsel for the Ops stated that there is no expert opinion in view of the 'Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq", 2009 CTJ 352 but in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013(2) CLT 1 "A. Srimannarayana versus Dasari Santakumari & Anr.", it was observed that the judgment rendered by two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq" (supra) has CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 18 OF 2009 14 been correctly declared per incuriam by the judgment in 'V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr.", (2010) 5 SCC 513 as the law laid down in 'Martin D'Souza' was contrary to the law laid down in 'Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.", (2005) 6 SCC 1 case, therefore, in case evidence on the record is sufficient, the Consumer Fora can decide the negligence of the Doctor, if any, on the basis of evidence and the case of the parties cannot be declined merely because of the fact that it is not supported by any expert opinion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 502 - M Katju - Full Document

A.Srimannarayana vs Dasari Santakumari & Anr on 9 January, 2013

14. Firstly so far as expert opinion is concerned, the counsel for the Ops stated that there is no expert opinion in view of the 'Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq", 2009 CTJ 352 but in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013(2) CLT 1 "A. Srimannarayana versus Dasari Santakumari & Anr.", it was observed that the judgment rendered by two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq" (supra) has CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 18 OF 2009 14 been correctly declared per incuriam by the judgment in 'V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr.", (2010) 5 SCC 513 as the law laid down in 'Martin D'Souza' was contrary to the law laid down in 'Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.", (2005) 6 SCC 1 case, therefore, in case evidence on the record is sufficient, the Consumer Fora can decide the negligence of the Doctor, if any, on the basis of evidence and the case of the parties cannot be declined merely because of the fact that it is not supported by any expert opinion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - A R Dave - Full Document

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

14. Firstly so far as expert opinion is concerned, the counsel for the Ops stated that there is no expert opinion in view of the 'Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq", 2009 CTJ 352 but in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013(2) CLT 1 "A. Srimannarayana versus Dasari Santakumari & Anr.", it was observed that the judgment rendered by two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Martin D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq" (supra) has CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 18 OF 2009 14 been correctly declared per incuriam by the judgment in 'V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr.", (2010) 5 SCC 513 as the law laid down in 'Martin D'Souza' was contrary to the law laid down in 'Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.", (2005) 6 SCC 1 case, therefore, in case evidence on the record is sufficient, the Consumer Fora can decide the negligence of the Doctor, if any, on the basis of evidence and the case of the parties cannot be declined merely because of the fact that it is not supported by any expert opinion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 350 - Full Document

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

15. Now coming to the facts of the case, patient Pritpal Singh had received head injury in roadside accident and was admitted with the Ops. As is clear from the written plea taken by the Ops and the documents on the record, the condition of the patient was critical, therefore, he was got admitted in ICU. There is consent taken from the patient's father OP-1/2 for admission in the ICU. Then OP No. 2 referred the patient for CT Scan, X-ray. In the CT Scan, it was observed that there was no evidence of intracerebral haematoma / extraaxial collection, therefore, the doctor relied upon only the conservative treatment. As per the record maintained in the hospital, the condition of the patient has been stated to be stable on 3.10.2008 as per the treatment chart given in the written statement and tabularized in the written arguments referred above. In case we go through the details of the treatment referred above, some medicines have been prescribed on 3.10.2008 but it has not been stated that the patient was stable. Although treatment given on 4.10.2008 has been referred in the written arguments but the actual treatment record i.e. CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 18 OF 2009 15 OPD card of the patient has been withheld by the Ops because the record upto 3.10.2008 has been placed on the record as Exs. OP-1 & OP-1/2. Despite directions the original record has been withheld and in the written arguments only the typed record has been placed on the record, therefore, authenticity of the treatment given on 4.10.2008 cannot be given in case original record has not been produced and its adverse inference be taken against the Ops. Why the said record has been withheld from the perusal of the Court/Commission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Mr. Alfred Benedict & Anr. vs M/S Manipal Hospital Bangalore & Ors. on 22 May, 2013

As earlier stated that only the treatment record of OP-1/1 and OP-1/2 has been placed on the record i.e. prescription of some medicines dated 3.10.2008 but it does not show whether these were prescribed by OP No. 2 or some junior doctor. Whereas the record of 4.10.2008 has been withheld, therefore, it cannot be said whether the patient was duly attended by OP No. 2 after 2.10.2008 that may be the reason that CT Scan was not repeated. In case the hospital/Doctor has not done, which was required to be done then it amounts to case of medical negligence. It has been so held by the Hon'ble National Commission in 2013(3) CLT 357 "M/s Manipal Hospital Bangalore & Others versus Alfred Benedict & others".
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next