Medico-Legal

  ' Higher  Relief'   to Doctors from the scanner of FDA on the alleged grounds of selling of medicines. Adv. Rohit Erande. © IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Case Details : CRIMINAL APPL ICATION (APL) NO. 638 OF 2023 Dr. Prashant S/o. Gokul Tipale V/s. State of Maharashtra. CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J., Decided on 22 nd July 2024. Following a complaint from the Chemists Association, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reportedly started   a state-wide drive to inspect private doctors in Maharashtra stocking drugs in large quantities and selling them to patients . This action has stirrd up the hornet’s nest and the Doctors have been accusing the authorities for harassing them under the garb of inspection. On this background the recent judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court should provide solace to Doctors.   Facts in Short : 1. The original complaint was filed against the Petitioner – Applicant –a M.D. Psychiatrist himself ,   b

  The new Code and the Criminal Liability of Doctors : Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.  © It will not be an overstatement to say that, these days the Doctors are doing Defensive practice. There are umpteen number of incidences wherein if a patient dies, then the Doctors may face Civil Action for damages i.e. cases in a consumer court and/or Criminal Action, wherein the Doctors may get arrested on the alleged ground of Medical Negligence  and previously   charges under Section 304-II instead of Sec.304-A of IPC used to be imposed. However, now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 (BNS) received approval from the Hon’ble President and it came into effect since 1 st July 2024 and the new Code has brought many changes and as far as Doctors is concerned, we will try to compare these changes. Whether under old regime or the new one, it is the prerogative of Police Authorities to put the  sections in the FIR, but ultimately  it's legality is decided by the Courts. Lets' see in nutsh

  5 years after Appendectomy, it was found that a sharp needle left in the abdominal wall of a patient and a Doctor held liable for damages of Rs.2 laks for Medical Negligence by applying Doctrine of "Eggshell-Skull rule", but the SC enhanced the compensation !!!!!! Facts of the case in short : 1. In a rare but interesting case the National Commission reduced the the damages to Rs.2 lakhs on a Doctor, because of whose negligence, a sharp needle remained the abdominal wall of the Complainant in appendectomy, one of the most common surgical procedures performed in its recent judgment dated 01/09/2015, in the case of Jyoti Devi V/s. SUKET HOSPITAL & 3 ORS. (R.P. No.57/2015) link of NCDRC Judgment - http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do... 2. The complainant underwent appendectomy operation on 28-06-2005 at Suket Hospital, Sundernagar, Himachal Pradesh. She was discharged on 30-06-2015. During follow up, she complained of pain at the site of surgery. Again on 30

Medical Records of "INDOOR PATIENTS" is to be maintained for 3 years. No such obligation is in seen incase of  OPD Patients record. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.  © Every Doctor / hospital will agree that maintaining of record of patients is a herculean task. The number of patients examined in OPD (Outdoor Patient Department) are much more than the IPD (Indoor Patient Department) One may like it or not, but there is no excuse. Most of the cases of Medical Negligence are either won or lost by doctors on the basis of documentation.  Always remember " NO RECORD  IS NO PROOF, POOR RECORD IS POOR PROOF " In one of the case before the NCDRC, the moot question was whether a Patient who was admitted in an emergency ward and later on discharged after initial treatment can be regarded as the OPD patient or IPD Patient ? As the deceased patient after meeting with an accident came to the Hospital and after CT Scan, X-ray etc. were done and his left hand was plastered,  he was discharged f

 #Surrogacy Center Govt. permits using of  #donor #gametes... Adv. ROHiT Erande. © Central Government in its recent amendment made to Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022 vide a notification dated 21/02/2024, has notified that the couples (husband or wife) certified as suffering from medical conditions, both gametes need not come from the intending couple. This is a very crucial development and will benefit many intending parents. The new rule reads as under : (i) couple undergoing surrogacy must have both gamete from the intending couple. However, in case when the District Medical Board certifies that either husband or wife constituting the intending couple suffers from medical condition necessitating use of donor gamete then surrogacy using donor gamete is allowed subject to the condition that the child to be born through surrogacy must have atleast one gamete from the intending couple; (ii) single woman (widow or divorcee) undergoing surrogacy must use self eggs and donor sperms to a

  The journey of Advanced Directive or the Living Will or End of Life Care  -  from no  base to good, now better and hoping for the best legal base ! ADV. ROHIT ERANDE  © Introduction :  Art.21 of the Indian constitution gives an individual the Right to Life and personal liberty –which are regarded as the Natural rights, even in absence of any Constitution. The words “right to life” has been interpreted by the Higher Judiciary to include various aspects of human life. E.g. right to live with dignity, right to environment, right of Free Trial, right to lead meaningful life and so on. This right of life whether includes right to die ? was the moot question before hon’ble supreme court and let’s see the history thereof in nutshell. Whether Right to life includes Right to die? a. The issue can be traced back to the landmark judgment in the case of P. Rathinam V/s. Union of India ((1994) 3 SCC 394), wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 309 of the IPC