Medico-Legal

Case Details : Mr. Vijay Kumar V/s. Dr. Sonia Malik, Dr. Kavita Katoch & Holy Angel Hospital, New Delhi. Case No.09/2011, decided on 22/01/2019. By : Hon. Anil Shrivastava Judgment Link : ://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F0%2FCC%2F11%2F9&dtofhearing=2019-01-15 Facts in short : 1. The Complainant Husband, who lost his beloved wife at the time of her Delivery, filed the compliant for claiming Rs.82,00,000/- as compensation. 2. It was contended in the compliant that deceased patient was diagnosed with 2 fibroids and after consulting the Doctors she was advised to get admitted in the Opponent- Hospital, which is well equipped with modern facilities.  3. On 08/07/2009, the Complainant and his wife reached the Hospital, but where shocked to see that there was no Doctor available. The Nurse gave some medicines and asked the Complainant to bring medicines, cotton, syringes etc. After 15-20 minutes the patient st

A new year gift in form of Judgment for the Medicos by Hon. Delhi State Consumer Forum.  A case claiming Rs.50 lakhs compensation mainly on the allegation that a mask was put in patient's  nose amounted to Negligence was dismissed, underlining the principle that :  " A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. " Case Details : Manohar Lal V/s. Karla Hospital SRCNC, New Delhi Compliant No.47/2011, decided on 18/01/2019 By : Hon. Anil Shrivastava Judgment Link : http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement

National Consumer Redressal Forum came to the rescue of Senior Drs and and well known Hospital in Pune and dismissed the Compliant claiming Rs.50 lakcs damages for alleged Medical Negligence, as it was proved that the Doctors followed the standard protocol of treatment.  Case Details :  Mr. Atulkumar Upadhye V/s.  Dr. Anantbhushan Ranade, Sanjeevan Hospital, Pune and Trustees of Jana-Prabodhini Medical Trust, Pune & ors (F.A. No.811/2015),  Forum : Hon. Mr. Justice R.K. Agarwal and Hon. Mrs. M. Shreeshta. Decided on : 15/11/2018  The facts in nutshell are as under : 1.  The Complainant’s wife Smt. Smita, 42 yrs of age, a Banker by profession,   was diagnosed with ovarian cancer (CA ovarian) in the year 2004, which was in an advanced stage. the said diagnosis and advised a further course of treatment. She was advised to undergo four chemotherapy  sessions followed by Surgery and thereafter three more chemotherapy sessions. It was stated that the  treating

The Doctor saved from paying hefty compensation as he performed surgery  per the standard practice norms.  Case Details : DR. MADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE V/s. BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL Case No. R.P. No.786/2016 Before : HON. MRS. M. SHREESHA,PRESIDING MEMBER  HON. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR - MEMBER The judgment Link : http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F768%2F2016&dtofhearing=2018-11-20 Facts in short : 1. The case goes back to year January-1999. The complainant Mr. Bherulal Oswal , resident of Lonavala, approached Dr.Madhusudan Kumbhare for the treatment of right eye cataract. In due course the Catract surgery was performed in Shushrut Hospital, Pune on or about 19/01/1999 and in the same day evening the patient was discharged.  2. On next day the patient again visited the Doctor as he had severe pain in the operated eye. The Doctor changed the dressing and prescribed Tablet Betnesol, Fluer Eye drops and ga

Perhaps the Doctors are not  scared of anything than The Consumer Protection Act or CPA. Medicos often refer it to the draconian legislation. Its been more than 3 decades that the Doctors and the Hospitals have been brought under the 4 corners of this Law. Now  t he Consumer Protection Bill, 2017 which was approved by the Union Cabinet last year  is likely to be  to be taken up during this Budget session, which is to commence tentatively from January 29, 2018. The bill has been already approved by the Lower House i.e. the Loksabha.   The CPA is a social legislation and its main aim and object reads as under  "An Act to provide for the better protection of the Interest of Consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith". Lets see the salient features of the Proposed new Amendment : 1. False and Misleading advertisemen

A Surrogate Mother permitted to Terminate pregnancy @ 24 week by Hon. Bombay High Court. An unique judgment indeed. Case details : Kiran Kailas Gavhande & anr. V/s. Union of India & ors. W.P. No.14494/2018 Coram : Hon. Smt. Bharati H. Dangare J. (vacation Court) Facts of the case in short : 1. The Petitioner No.1 and 2 herein executed Surrogacy agreement with the intended parents i.e. the Petitioner No.3 and 4. The Petitioner No.1 and 2 reside in a small village Varvand, Mehkar Dist. Buldhana, Maharashtra. 2. During  routine check up of the Petitioner No.1, it was found that the fetus had serious  defects in the heart and after consulting the Pediatric Cardiologist, it was decided to abort the fetus.However by that time it was already 24 weeks fetus and as per current law it is not possible to terminate pregnancy @ 24 weeks. Before discussing the further facts, lets see the current law in brief. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 As per