Back
S. M. KANTIKAR, BINOY KUMAR
Baliram Dhondiram Pareswar – Appellant
Versus
Sakuntala Devi Thevarkar Narayan – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The “Terrible Triad Injuries” of the elbow needs careful assessment. The proper identification of these lesions is quite demanding and their early management is a favourable prognostic factor for final outcome.
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/16/1153, wherein the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties was dismissed.
2. Brief facts that, the Complainant/Respondent Smt. Sakuntala Devi Thevarkar Narayan (for short the ‘patient’) sustained injuries to right wrist and elbow due to accident on 29.07.2011. She approached the Om Sai Hospital and consulted an Orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Bharat Rathod (the OP-2). On 30.07.2011 OP-2 performed K -wire fixation surgery of lower end radius fracture and plaster was also applied. However, the pain persisted in the elbow joint. Thereafter, on 11.11.2011, the Complainant consulted another Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Parag Mhatre, who opined that it wa
Genuineness of the physiotherapist - The genuineness of the physiotherapist is also questionable on the point of how he posed as a ‘doctor’ and used letterheads of other doctor / clinic.
Medical professionals must adhere to established standards of practice; failing to do so constitutes negligence, justifying compensation to affected patients.
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) Cannot hold AIIMS for failure of duty of care for the non-availability of date for operation.(2) No negligence of treating doctors at ESI Hospital either in diagnosis or the treatment of left han....
(1) Improper treatment on basis of commonly undetected injuries termed as limited negligence, not medical negligence. (2) Patient deserves compensation due to lifetime impairment due to misdiagnoses.....
Medical negligence requires clear proof of duty breach causing injury; mere unfavorable outcomes do not imply negligence if standard practices are followed.
Medical negligence requires clear evidence of fault; mere complications from surgery after a lengthy delay do not establish negligence.
Negligence in treatment of Osteosarcoma, ruled out, since treatment plan was correct as per standard of practice.
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
