Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Mahadeo Singhi Netra Chikitsalaya – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Lal – Respondent
ORDER
These six RPs, the three sets of cross RPs, have been filed by the Parties, as detailed below, under section 21(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the orders dated 16.09.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in various First Appeals (FAs) in which order dated 11.09.2018 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in various Consumer Complaints were challenged.
2. Three complaints viz. CC/366/2013, CC/365/2013 and CC/364/2013 were filed before the District Forum by three complainants viz. Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Mr. Khayali Ram and Smt. Revati Devi respectively and were disposed off by a common order dated 11.09.2018 of the District Forum. Nine Appeals were filed challenging the said common order in the three consumer complaints as per following details:—
(a) FA/822/2018, FA/823/2018 and FA/824/2018 were filed by Mahadeo Singhi Netra Chikitsalaya, Dr. Pramod Kr. Sehgal and Dr. Amitabha Chakrabarti (Three Appellants jointly filing three Appeals).
(b) FA/863/2018, FA/864/2018 and FA/865/2018 were filed by United India Insuran
(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....
“Lasik procedure if not performed with reasonable care and skill, which caused retinal displacement amounts to medical negligence.”
(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 –....
Revisional jurisdiction - Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illeg....
National Commission - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited.
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
The court upheld that medical negligence claims must be substantiated with expert evidence, and standard surgical practices cannot be deemed negligent without such proof.
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
