Back
A. K. TIWARI, MONIKA MALIK
Neelam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Preeti Thareja – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member—This appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant Dr. Neelam Singh is directed against the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.226/2013, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complainant filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).
2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant after completion of seven months of her pregnancy approached Civil Hospital, Hazira, Gwalior on 09.09.2011 for regular checkup where the opposite party no.1 Dr. Neelam Singh checked her and advised for blood test and ultrasonography. On getting ultrasound done, the expected date of delivery of child was told to her as 21.10.2011. Again on 22.09.2011 when she consulted the opposite party no.1-doctor she was told that there will be normal delivery. The doctor told her she that will do thorough checkup of her in Vinayak Hospital & Research Centre and therefore she went to aforesaid hospital on 23.09.2011 where the opposite party no.1-doctor after checkup gave her medical prescription. On advice of opposite p
(1) Burden of Proof & Expert Opinion – Under the Consumer Protection Act, to establish medical negligence, there must be material on record or appropriate medical evidence (Expert Opinion) tendered. ....
(1) Negligent Act – Intestinal adhesions are a known risk of major abdominal surgeries and cannot, by themselves, establish a “negligent act” without further evidence of a breach of standard protocol....
Medical Negligence – Negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable & not based on perception.
Medical Negligence – Deficiency in service – Removal of kidney when procedure was only for removal of kidney stone – Doctor not qualified – Compensation.
:(1) Pre-operative Investigations – It is considered a “judgment of error” and deficiency in service if a doctor proceeds with an exploratory laparotomy (surgery) without conducting proper prior inve....
Shifting of patient – it is proved beyond doubt that it was not the Complainant’s decision of shifting the patient but the Appellant and the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital referred the patient to any ....
(1) Standard of Care (Advice vs. Persistence) – The Commission clarified that once a doctor advises a necessary diagnostic test (like the Level-II Scan), the burden of compliance shifts to the patien....
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
