When IMA Saddled with Rs.10,000/-

When IMA Saddled with Rs.10,000/- for denying pension benefits to family members of deceased Doctors...

You may come across such judgements co-incidently, but are unique and a must know for the Fraternity !

The NCRDC in its judgment dated 13/03/2015 in the case of IMA V/s. V.R. Chaitanya & ors (REVISION PETITION NO. 464 OF 2015)  dismissed the  Revision Petition of IMA calling it as frivolous and vexatious. ...

The factual matrix :

1. The IMA (Andhra Pradesh State Branch of IMA)  introduced Family Benefit Scheme (FBS) with the aim and objective of providing minimum  substantial financial aid to the family members of the  said  Scheme, in case of Member’s demise  and  also to promote life membership of IMA.

 2. One Dr. Srinivasa Murthy, who opted for the said scheme  paid the contribution till he died, on 27.06.2010. The next date of  fraternity contribution bill fell  due on 07.07.2010.   The widow of the deceased Dr. paid the contribution amount  on 29.06.2010, i.e., two days’ after  the  death of her husband.

3.However, the IMA refused to pay the contribution amount on the fanciful ground that there was delay of 2 days in paying the contribution !! Like before NCRDC, IMA lost the court battle in 2 lower forums too...

Held :

1. It was observed by the National Commission by relying on its earlier judgment that, The Aims and Objectives of the Scheme very clearly provide that the Scheme has been framed to provide immediate substantial financial aid to the family of the Member of the Scheme on his/her demise.
2. The said objectives shall be absolutely defeated, if a view is taken that just for one default in making payment of subscription and that also because of his sickness and consequential death, the membership stands terminated and the family of deceased is not given the benefit of Fraternity Contribution.
3. Moreover there was no embargo upon making the payment by the Legal Rep. of the deceased, as Membership can be terminated only if the payment is not made within six months of demand (with late fees) and that also, after giving a registered notice to the beneficiary.

This is a unique judgment apart from Medical Negligence, in favour of Drs. All other State  Branches of IMA should take a note of this judgment....

Thanks & Regds,

Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune. ©

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor refused t
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno
Read more