Back
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Vatsala Lal Wd/o Late Alfretlal Baldu – Appellant
Versus
Jeerabai W/o Gulabdas Panika – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) Since an identical issue is involved in both the cases, they are being heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2) Both the appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. H-08B/2014 whereby the 2nd Additional District Judge, Mahasamund has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the alleged negligence committed by the defendant No. 1. First Appeal No. 53/2015 has been filed by defendant No. 1 for quashment of the impugned judgment and decree whereas First Appeal No. 89/2015 has been filed by plaintiff for enhancement of the compensation.
3) For convenience plaintiff and defendants are termed as it exists before the trial Court.
4) The plaintiff has filed civil suit before the learned trial Court contending that defendant No. 1 was working as Health Worker in the Government Hospital. On 21.07.2003, plaintiff's son was suffering from acute diarrhea, she took her to the Government Hospital where defendant No. 1 was posted. The plaintiff keeping her son on her lap was sitting for injection. But while administering injection defendant
(1) No proper consent of the complainant was taken before administering the said injection.(2) Side effects of said injection were never informed.(3) Amounts to deficiency in service and medical neg....
Vicarious liability applies when an employee's negligent act, committed during the course of employment, directly results in injury, establishing grounds for compensation.
The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, allowing compensation claims for human rights violations even in the absence of negligence.
The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, warranting compensation for violations even without proving negligence by the State.
The standard of care in medical negligence requires adherence to accepted medical practices, and failure to perform necessary diagnostic tests constitutes negligence.
The failure to detect an intraocular foreign body and to provide timely treatment by the defendant constitutes medical negligence, leading to serious impairments and damages.
A medical practitioner must meet the established standard of care in diagnosing and treating injuries; failure to do so resulting in harm constitutes negligence.
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....
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
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
