Back
GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA
Sarita Manoj Thomas – Appellant
Versus
Rajani Jain – Respondent
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President—This order will govern disposal of both these appeals, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), arising out of the same impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) (hereinafter called the “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case Nos.CC/08/2018, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and each of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 were directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- separately (i.e. total Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) to the complainant with simple interest thereon @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint i.e. 01/02/2018 till the date of payment, within one month from the date of order, failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. It was further directed that out of the amount of penalty of Rs.2,00,000 (two lakhs) imposed on the opposite party Nos.1 & 2, Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) shall be payable to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) shall be deposited in the District Consumer Welfare Fund. The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25
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....
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....
Negligence in medical treatment must be proven with concrete evidence, and mere adverse outcomes do not imply failure of care.
A medical practitioner cannot be held liable for negligence without substantial evidence proving standard of care was not met.
Medical negligence – Negligence cannot be attributed to a Doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence.
“Lasik procedure if not performed with reasonable care and skill, which caused retinal displacement amounts to medical negligence.”
(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....
Medical negligence must be supported by conclusive evidence; sympathetic views do not replace the requirement for such evidence.
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
