Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
Ratanmani Kesharwani – Appellant
Versus
Rajshekhar Krishna – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (“the Act”) against the order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’) at Raipur in FA No. 385 of 2017 & FA 414 of 2017. In the impugned order dated 17.10.2017, the State Commission allowed the Appeals and set aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (‘District Forum’) order dated 03.04.2017 in CC No. 176 of 2006.
2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that his wife, Shanti Bai, was suffering from a uterine problem. Initially, he and his wife had consulted Dr. Shikha Mitra, who advised a sonography test. On 03.05.2004, Dr. Shaileja Ghosh conducted the sonography test, and based on the test results, Dr. Shikha Mitra prescribed medication, which provided Shanti Bai some relief for about three months. When the symptoms recurred, Shanti Bai consulted Dr. YR Krishna (OP-1) at KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, on 26.09.2004. After review
(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....
(1) Pancreatitis – Pancreatitis could be detected only much later but OPs cannot be held responsible.(2) Negligence – The patient’s treatment was based on from OP No.3, which further underscores negl....
Protection of Life – OPs failed to bring on record that inherent infrastructure and expertise to protect the life of deceased who was admitted.
Medical Negligence – The allegations of medical negligence have also been duly examined by the Medical Experts and the lapses of OPs in providing treatment to the patient have been established.
(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 –....
(1) Mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence.(2) Error of judgment on part of professional is not negligence per se.(3) Negligence cannot be attribut....
Standard care - It should be borne in mind that the type of medical service offered, the practitioner’s expertise, training, and experience, and even the location where the treatment took place may a....
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
