Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Superb Mri & C.T. Scan vs Kanav Chopra (Minor) & Anr. on 27 February, 2024 cites

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

23.     Reliance has been placed on several judgments to contend that medical negligence cannot be attributed without their being any indication of deviation by the Appellant from the normal professional practice and reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. reported in 2009 Vol.9 SCC Page-221.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 369 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Smt. Savita Garg vs The Director, National Heart Institute on 12 October, 2004

24.     It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the State Commission has abruptly concluded to award Rs.20 lacs as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and loss of career without any discussion or applying any empirical method.  It is urged that this abrupt conclusion is not inconformity with the parameters that have been laid down in the judgments referred to above, and the absence of any material to support the claim of Rs.20 lacs as compensation, the same could not have been allowed on a bald allegation made in Para-27 of the Complaint which had been vehemently denied in the Written Version of the Appellant and the Evidence led.  It is also urged that there is no proper calculation of the actual medical expenses for which some bills were tendered and even otherwise there is no loss of career to the Complainant who after the treatment has been able to establish himself professionally as a lawyer which is a family profession of the Complainant.  The submission, therefore, is that neither any negligence has been made out nor any justification existed for award of any compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 257 - A K Mathur - Full Document

V. Krishnakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu &Ors.; on 1 July, 2015

36.     It is not very easy to proportionately attribute negligence on account of such a delay as both sides have not filed adequate material or evidence to that effect.  The claims and counter claims are, therefore, only based on assumptions and hence, the calculation of the compensation deserves to be made on some empirical basis, more particularly, when it relates to non-pecuniary damages.  The expected age of the child even if taken to be 70 years, left him with vision in only one eye for the rest of his life.  The Complainant has not filed any Appeal so as to apply the formula as suggested by the Apex Court in the case of V. Krishnakumar (supra).  Nonetheless, it has to be seen as to whether, the State Commission, even though has not given any reason, can the compensation of Rs.20 lacs awarded by it be upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 41 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1