Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal(D) By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Madhusudan N. Kumbhare – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1[“NCDRC”, hereinafter] in Revision Petition No. 768 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein along with Revision Petition No. 2443 of 2016 filed by the appellant herein, whereby NCDRC allowed the respondent’s revision petition, dismissed the appellant’s revision, set aside the order of the State Commission and consequently dismissed the complaint.
3. It would be relevant to state that during the pendency of this appeal, the complainant-appellant had died and the appeal is being prosecuted by his legal heirs who have been brought on record.
4. Brief facts of the matter are that the instant appellant is the original complainant/patient, a resident of Lonavala, who had developed cataract in his right eye and had approached the respondent i.e. the Opposite Party2[“OP”, hereinafter], who is an eye surgeon, at his clinic in Pune on 11.01.1999. The respondent, after examination, advised an operation for removal of cataract in the right eye. The cataract operation was accordingly performed by the respondent at 8
Medical Negligence – Doctors should carefully and honestly listen to complaints of patients and try to redress the same – No credible reliance can be put on respondent’s written version which was not....
Medical Negligence – Eye operation for cataract using IOL technique – Vision post operation was normal – No deficiency in service.
A medical practitioner cannot be held liable for negligence without substantial evidence proving standard of care was not met.
(1) In cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery.(2) While report of Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer foru....
Medical negligence – Simply for reason that patient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by Doctor or that surgery has failed, Doctor cannot be held liable for medical ne....
“Lasik procedure if not performed with reasonable care and skill, which caused retinal displacement amounts to medical negligence.”
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainants successfully proved medical negligence on the part of the treating surgeon, leading to the patient's death. The court relied ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
