Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARINDAM SINHA
Sujog Kumar Nayak – Appellant
Versus
Bandita Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. medical negligence proceedings initiation. (Para 1) |
| 2. lack of tangible medical evidence for negligence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. public utility service definition and adjudication context. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal principles on medical professional's liability. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. pla's illegal and irregular actions in awarding against doctor. (Para 8) |
| 6. writ petition outcome - award quashed. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who is a doctor. On 24th June, 2022, he had moved the petition to submit, his client performed operation on private opposite party, who thereafter complained of medical negligence and the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), by impugned award dated 9th November, 2021, found in her favour. By order made that day Court had posed queries to Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of said private opposite party. Paragraph 3 in said order, containing the queries, is reproduced below.
“3. Court requires satisfaction that medical negligence is covered by entry (v) under clause (b) of section 22A in Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Furthermore, cursory glance at impugned award does not reflect evidence was laid before t
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
