Back
R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
E. Syamala – Appellant
Versus
Alexander Abraham – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The instant Revision Petition was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 104/11 whereby the Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed.
2. The main grievance of the Complainant that she had problem at D-5 level, however the opposite parties wrongly performed operation at L-4 and L-5 level and removed portions of the vertebra causing injury to nerves which resulted paralysis below the hip. It was alleged that the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 were not qualified to do neurosurgery. Thereafter, the prolonged Physiotherapy was not fruitful. She consulted a Neurosurgeon at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, who diagnosed a cyst at D5 level and removed the cyst by operation. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Pathanamthitta.
3. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant challenged the dismissal by filing first Appeal before
The court upheld that medical negligence claims must be substantiated with expert evidence, and standard surgical practices cannot be deemed negligent without such proof.
As long as doctor acts with due care, skill and diligence even if the patient does not survive or suffers permanent ailment, difficult to hold doctor guilty of negligence
(1) Revision – A revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revis....
Revision Petition - there are concurrent findings of fact and the revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is limited. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b).
(1) Duty of care – The duty of care implies that the doctor must exercise reasonable skill and care, adhering to the standards expected of a medical professional in similar circumstances.(2) Breach –....
Negligence - The mere fact that Complainant has again got his second operation done from the same OP does not absolve the OP from his negligence at the time of first operation.
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
