Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Rohit Charan – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Singh Kandhal – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member.—This First Appeal challenges the order dated 13.08.2018 in complaint no.80 of 2014 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) allowing the complaint of the respondent and directing payment of Rs.1.00 lakh towards hospitalization, medicines and treatment of the respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization along with Rs.5.00 lakh towards mental agony with similar interest and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation along with 9% rate of interest for the period.
2. IA No.4869 of 2019 praying for condonation of delay of 51 days is allowed and the delay is condoned in the interest of justice for the reasons stated in the IA.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.
4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the respondent underwent, at the advice of the appellant no.1, an IOL Implant operation (cataract eye operation) on 14.05.2014 in the appellant no.2 hospital. While the operation was successful, there was congestion (redness) in the eye and corneal oedema was noticed. T
Medical Negligence – Eye operation for cataract using IOL technique – Vision post operation was normal – No deficiency in service.
Medical Negligence – Doctors should carefully and honestly listen to complaints of patients and try to redress the same – No credible reliance can be put on respondent’s written version which was not....
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....
“Lasik procedure if not performed with reasonable care and skill, which caused retinal displacement amounts to medical negligence.”
A medical practitioner cannot be held liable for negligence without substantial evidence proving standard of care was not met.
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
The duty of care in medical procedures requires proper monitoring of oxygen supply, and negligence occurs when these standards are not met, leading to patient harm.
(1) In cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery.(2) While report of Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer foru....
Critical condition - If the patient was in a critical condition and he could not survive even after surgery, keeping that in mind the blame cannot be passed on to the Hospital and the Doctor who had ....
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
